Re: [musl] sgetspent(3) on musl

[Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --]

Hi Jeffrey,

On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 01:35:06AM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 1:12 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > FWIW though I don't generally expect spurious declarations like this
> > to do any harm -- detection should be via a compile-and-link test not
> > just looking for a declaration. Is there a build system these days
> > that's doing purely declaration-based detection?
> 
> I don't know about build systems, but I generally avoid build systems
> for my projects. I would not wish Autotools on an enemy.

+1

> Instead I use a non-anemic make, like GNU Make.

I agree, and use only GNU Make for my own software projects.

<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/liba2i/liba2i.git/tree/GNUmakefile>
<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/liba2i/liba2i.git/tree/share/mk>

Here's an example of feature testing in my makefiles:

CC_HAS_FFAT_LTO_OBJECTS := \
	$(shell \
		$(CC) -Werror -ffat-lto-objects -S -x c -o /dev/null /dev/null $(HIDE_ERR) \
		&& $(ECHO) yes \
		|| $(ECHO) no; \
	)

<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/liba2i/liba2i.git/tree/share/mk/configure/build-depends/gcc/cc.mk#n30>

> GNU Make is all that
> is needed to test header files for #defines.

Yep.  However, when testing for a libc function, I think I would most
likely run CC without flags asking to only compile but not assemble or
link.  I would just do the full compilation, and see if it works.

Although, I can consider that if some make(1)-based build system wants
to save a small amount of time, it might cut on these.

> 
> Jeff

Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]