From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7148 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-wsnj@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: MUSL Feature Detection Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:58:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20150305085823.GX1264@example.net> References: <20150304205458.GA14554@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <20150305083315.GW1264@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1425545938 17664 80.91.229.3 (5 Mar 2015 08:58:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:58:58 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7161-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 05 09:58:57 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YTRcO-0001Fm-8R for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:58:56 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 28313 invoked by uid 550); 5 Mar 2015 08:58:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 28282 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2015 08:58:50 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe04.swip.net; client-ip=89.31.57.5; envelope-from=u-wsnj@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150305083315.GW1264@example.net> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7148 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:33:15AM +0100, u-wsnj@aetey.se wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:54:58PM -0800, William Ahern wrote: > > So, is there any sort of sanctioned way to detect MUSL at all, version or no > > version? Is there any interest in supporting any kind of feature detection, > > such as an API that communicates implementation choices wrt unspecified and > > undefined behavior. Sorry for having made a too large citation. To be clear, I commented only on the part: > > So, is there any sort of sanctioned way to detect MUSL at all, version or no > > version? [skipping my former message] As for your proposal > > Is there any interest in supporting any kind of feature detection, > > such as an API that communicates implementation choices wrt unspecified and > > undefined behavior. I did not mean to comment on this in the previous message. It looks otherwise reasonable but amounts to a standardization effort for a new API with exactly the details intentionally omitted by the existing standards. This might be hard to accomplish. Rune