On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:35 PM, James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com>
wrote:
It's a question which is impossible to ever answer in the
negative -- there always _may be_ any sort of terrible
software implemented out there, somewhere. But, I do doubt any
such relevant compilers actually exist.
Or, put another way, it has always seemed to me that one of
musl's tenets is to "fail fast and break hard" on egregiously
invalid code. I'd argue "pretending to be GNU C++ and not having
__null" is much more egregious than "code still using NULL in
C++". Therefore it's better to break the invalid compiler
(which could have any number of other bugs) than break the C++
code.
Sincerely,
--someone who actually enjoys using musl and also actually
enjoys using C++, a seemingly rare breed
--
A. Wilcox (Sent from my iPhone -
not signed)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
You need to be cloned before you become a target of some weird
computing museum somewhere ...