From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9008 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl & proprietary programs Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:40:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20151224104009.GT23362@port70.net> References: <20151222132706.57214aa6@vostro> <20151222222513.10f23f5a@r2lynx> <20151223144852.GR23362@port70.net> <20151224002205.588ac8e8@r2lynx> <20151223174352.GA238@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151224015135.34dfe5f4@r2lynx> <20151224120442.04e497db@r2lynx> <20151224051625.GC238@brightrain.aerifal.cx> 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 1450953631 14912 80.91.229.3 (24 Dec 2015 10:40:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:40:31 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9021-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Dec 24 11:40:31 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 1aC3Jq-0007J2-2i for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:40:26 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 24406 invoked by uid 550); 24 Dec 2015 10:40:22 -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 24387 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2015 10:40:22 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151224051625.GC238@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9008 Archived-At: * Rich Felker [2015-12-24 00:16:25 -0500]: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:04:42PM +0700, ???????? wrote: > > There is also problem that musl wishes not to be fully glibc compat. > > Certain libc structs and public structs coming from glibc headers that > > are not required to be ABI same will be different on musl for > > performance or optimization reasons, and programs relying on them > > usually will not be happy. Simple programs probably still will work. > > There are no differences for performance or optimization reasons, > unless you want to count [u]int_fastNN_t which are basically never > used in public APIs anyway. Otherwise the only differences are that > musl lacks the 32-bit-off_t structures on 32-bit archs (i.e. it can't > match the _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=32 ABI on glibc, but it's not safe to use > this ABI anymore anyway) and that musl does not copy the > non-conforming, unsafe-because-it's-too-small glibc regoff_t on 64-bit > archs (this only affects regexec). > thread cancellation cleanup abi is different too (because glibc is broken for async-cancel) but nobody uses that so it should not be a problem the nvidia dso may segfault for many reasons, iirc the last time we identified that it uses stdio in a broken way, but there are numerous problems so a crash should not be a surprise.