From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1358 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregor Richards Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:29:11 -0400 Message-ID: <500EE977.70205@purdue.edu> References: <20120722181332.191d4fa5@newbook> <20120722183828.20b71c9d@newbook> <72fae6f34ad57662422b87379f3fdf9b@exys.org> <65E116B4-1634-478A-957E-A7B374396614@palsenberg.com> <500EE723.5050003@purdue.edu> <77170945-3310-4E43-A57E-D5B00974DCA0@palsenberg.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343154572 22091 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2012 18:29:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:29:32 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1359-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jul 24 20:29:31 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1StjrI-0006Fk-KC for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:29:24 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32038 invoked by uid 550); 24 Jul 2012 18:29:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 32030 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2012 18:29:23 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <77170945-3310-4E43-A57E-D5B00974DCA0@palsenberg.com> X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399 X-PerlMx-Virus-Scanned: Yes Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1358 Archived-At: On 07/24/12 14:23, Igmar Palsenberg wrote: > >>>>> Just nonsense aliases GNU uses... >>>>> Needed for ABI compatability. >>>> could we mark them as such? at least with a comment. >>>> I really like that musl is so readable. This patch adds some obfuscation that can simply be countered by marking it as "ok this is only here for reason X." >>> I would like to see those options behind a compile time option : It bloats musl with in many cases unneeded code. I test my compiles with musl, and I like it lean and mean. >> These are just aliases, not code. There's no bloat there. >> >> One of the advantages of musl is its LACK of configurability: If you have “musl”, you know what precisely you're getting. >> >> With valediction, >> - Gregor Richards >> > While I agree with the above, I still have a few objections : > > - We don't want glibc compatibility. We want a good libc. > - That we even need those aliases is usually a case of bad automake / autoconf / bad feature detection. > > Why bloat code with stuff to provide glibc compatibility ? > > > Igmar “That we even need those aliases is usually a case of bad automake / autoconf / bad feature detection” These are for ABI compatibility, not API compatibility. Nobody using glibc uses these symbols intentionally, they are renamed and aliased by the library. Last I checked, musl is shockingly close to ABI compatibility with glibc, and like it or not, that's a valuable feature. If you don't like the “bloat” of it, you'll have to dig out a lot of the existing aliases too. With valediction, - Gregor Richards