Re: Why there's no __MUSL__ macro question

[Shiz <hi@shiz.me>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1191 bytes --]


> On 23 Mar 2016, at 14:28, Kurt H Maier <khm@sdf.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:08:16PM +0000, Sirgio Marques wrote:
>> 
>> How are we expected to solve this kind of problem if not by using the
>> __MUSL__ macro?
> 
> The recommended solution is to fix the code to be portable, instead of
> installing yet another special-case workaround.
> 
> In this case, wrapping the "#include <execinfo.h>" line in an
> #ifdef __GLIBC__ would be more appropriate than special-casing for musl,
> since musl is not the only environment that lacks execinfo.h.  I suspect
> this code would also fail to build on cygwin, for instance.
> 
> If there existed a __MUSL__ macro, the maintainers of software like this
> would just use it instead of writing portable code.  By refusing to
> implement a __MUSL__ macro, musl is helping to urge projects in the
> right direction.
> 
> khm

Alternatively, a better approach would be the detection of <execinfo.h>’s
existence by something like ./configure and defining a HAVE_EXECINFO_H macro
as a result that the file can use. That way you’re not cluttering the source
files with platform-specific information.

- Shiz

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]