Re: [musl] *strerror_r() bug in musl

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:43:14PM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> > > And yet, I'm supposed to check the GNU feature macros?  So their
> > > defines are good?  But musl not having the equivalent is good?  
> > 
> > If you're using __GLIBC__ to work around an intentional glibc
> > nonconformance issue, that's reasonable usage of it and part of the
> > way they intend for you to be able to use it.
> 
> So you intend for me to use __GLIBC__, for something I'm not sure
> about, when __GLIBC__ is not part of your package or defined in your
> doc?

It's not part of our documentation because it has nothing to do with
musl. As far as I can tell, you're only perceiving it as being
"something about musl" because glibc is the frame of reference you're
used to.

> I'll stick to direct configure tests.
> 
> > > Get your story straight please.  
> > 
> > I don't see where it's inconsistent.
> > 
> > - Using standard macros provided by the implementation that describe
> >   interfaces available: good.
> 
> Except, musl does not provide any?  Or did I miss something?

The macros from unistd.h declare conformance to the standards and
which option groups are provided.

There is a proposal for extending this system with information about
extensions that aren't standardized, that was discussed on the
libc-coord mailing list, but it never really moved forward.

> On second thought, don't bother, I'll stick to direct configure tests.

This is a choice I fully support.