Re: Re: qsort_r or qsort_s in musl

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:48:02AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 02:41 AM, Balazs Kezes wrote:
> >On 2018-09-03 18:53 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=900
> >>
> >>I'm not aware of any further progress on the issue, but if it becomes
> >>clear that POSIX is either going to standardize a version that agree
> >>with the GNU definition, or commit to not standardizing any that
> >>conflict, I think the level of consensus we have so far is sufficient
> >>to consider doing it.
> >
> >Ah, so to get this into musl, POSIX needs to get this first. Is there a way to
> >ping that issue tracker to resolve the issue? Doesn't look like random schmucks
> >like myself can ping it. I think I found eblake's email, let me CC him.
> >
> >Eric: Would it be possible to resolve the above POSIX feature request one way or
> >another so that C code can start using it more portably? I would be happy with
> >qsortr too, it's nice and short. (This thread's archive is at the
> >http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/09/03/2 url.)
> 
> I will attempt to raise the priority of bug 900 in order to get it
> onto the agenda of an upcoming Austing Group call (unfortunately,
> the Austin Group meeting once per week tends to get through fewer
> bugs on average than the rate at which bugs are being filed, so
> there have been rather long lags at resolving any particular bug).

Thanks. Final acceptance into POSIX isn't completely mandatory for us
to adopt it, but I'd at least want to see that FreeBSD (others would
be great too) is moving forward with converting over to the
glibc/proposed-POSIX signature so the risk of this devolving into a
deadlock is in the past.

Rich