From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Why there's no __MUSL__ macro question
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:05:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160323150553.GL21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23DC04DE-6EB0-49A1-BEEE-3A57C3E099DC@shiz.me>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:17:58PM +0100, Shiz wrote:
>
> > On 23 Mar 2016, at 14:28, Kurt H Maier <khm@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:08:16PM +0000, Sirgio Marques wrote:
> >>
> >> How are we expected to solve this kind of problem if not by using the
> >> __MUSL__ macro?
> >
> > The recommended solution is to fix the code to be portable, instead of
> > installing yet another special-case workaround.
> >
> > In this case, wrapping the "#include <execinfo.h>" line in an
> > #ifdef __GLIBC__ would be more appropriate than special-casing for musl,
> > since musl is not the only environment that lacks execinfo.h. I suspect
> > this code would also fail to build on cygwin, for instance.
> >
> > If there existed a __MUSL__ macro, the maintainers of software like this
> > would just use it instead of writing portable code. By refusing to
> > implement a __MUSL__ macro, musl is helping to urge projects in the
> > right direction.
>
> Alternatively, a better approach would be the detection of <execinfo.h>’s
> existence by something like ./configure and defining a HAVE_EXECINFO_H macro
> as a result that the file can use. That way you’re not cluttering the source
> files with platform-specific information.
Indeed, hard-coding __GLIBC__ is not really a lot better. One of the
biggest problems with a hypothetical __MUSL__ is hard-coding
assumptions that "musl lacks X" (which can become false in the
future). A better approach is testing the the interface you want to
use. This can be done purely with makefile logic if you don't like
autotools.
Rich
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-23 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-23 13:08 Sérgio Marques
2016-03-23 13:28 ` Kurt H Maier
2016-03-23 14:17 ` Shiz
2016-03-23 15:05 ` Rich Felker [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160323150553.GL21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).