From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12615 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:53:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20180315185358.GJ1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20180315183939.GI1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521139930 15168 195.159.176.226 (15 Mar 2018 18:52:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:52:10 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-12629-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 15 19:52:06 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ewXyw-0003rH-AA for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:52:06 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 20022 invoked by uid 550); 15 Mar 2018 18:54:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 19985 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2018 18:54:10 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12615 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:48:32PM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote: > 2018-03-15 15:39 GMT-03:00 Rich Felker : > >> (e.g. the FD* issue reported by Martin Galvan). > > > > That's not a bug. It's compiler warnings being wrongly produced for a > > system header, probably because someone added -I/usr/include or > > similar (normally GCC suppresses these). > > I'm certain we didn't add -I/usr/include or something similar. Could > you test this yourself to confirm it's not a bug? In any case it's not a bug in musl. The code is perfectly valid C. If the compiler is producing a warning for it, either ignore it or ask the compiler to stop. > The compiler warnings aren't being wrongly produced. musl will indeed > perform a signed-to-unsigned conversion here. Because that's how the C language works. > > The musl policy regarding not having a macro like __MUSL__ is doing > > exactly what it's intended to do: encouraging developers and package > > maintainers to come to us (or investigate on their own) and fix the > > underlying portability problems (and sometimes musl bugs) rather than > > writing hacks to a specific version of musl that will be wrong a few > > versions later. > > So whenever we find a bug on musl we should just stop all our > development until you've fixed the bug? No. As noted above, if you need to support systems that might have bug X, you write a test (configure-time or run-time as appropriate) to detect bug X and handle it. Rich