Re: qsort_r or qsort_s in musl

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:27:00PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
> > qsort_r was at first rejected because of the conflicting definitions
> > -- existence of same-named interfaces with different semantics or
> > signatures is one of the big criteria for exclusion of nonstandard
> > extensions in musl. However, from the FreeBSD side at least there
> > seems to be interest in dropping their version and agreeing upon a
> > standard aligned with glibc's version, for the sake of POSIX:
> 
> If you want to see the current state of this in FreeBSD, we have a
> code review in progress in Phabricator at
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D17083. If POSIX standardizes on the glibc
> version I'm sure we'll follow.

Thanks for the update. It looks like we have a sort of 3- (N-?) way
deadlock:

A: POSIX adopts qsort_r with glibc signature
B: FreeBSD switches qsort_r to glibc signature
C: musl adds qsort_r with glibc signature

A seems kinda stalled and dependent on B and possibly others.
B seems dependent on A.
C seems dependent on A || B || some approximation of A. ;-)

Fortunately it looks like we're all on the same page about where it
should end up and all sides still want it to happen.

Rich