using a better posix list now, as recommended by nsz.
there are a few false positives, namely macros.
but afaik they can be counted on two hands.
> ok, tweaked it a bit more
>>
>> see attached perl script and output.
>> i recommend you rerun it since i didnt have the most recent musl 
>> version installed.
>>
>> On 05/29/2011 01:41 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> Apologies for the somewhat-slower progress on musl lately. The past
>>> few weeks I've had a good bit less contiguous time to devote to it.
>>> One thing that would help me make better use of my time is if I had a
>>> good list of the remaining areas of functionality that musl is
>>> missing, so I could use smaller blocks of time to write code that's
>>> simple and largely independent of everything else.
>>>
>>> Would anyone be willing to go through a list of symbols from musl,
>>> comparing it to the list of functions in the POSIX standard
>>> (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/contents.html) 
>>>
>>> and break it down into a list of functions and some categories of
>>> functionality? For the most part anything in non-essential option
>>> groups could be omitted or put in a separate list to address later.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>