From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1357 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Igmar Palsenberg Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:23:38 +0200 Message-ID: <77170945-3310-4E43-A57E-D5B00974DCA0@palsenberg.com> References: <20120722181332.191d4fa5@newbook> <20120722183828.20b71c9d@newbook> <72fae6f34ad57662422b87379f3fdf9b@exys.org> <65E116B4-1634-478A-957E-A7B374396614@palsenberg.com> <500EE723.5050003@purdue.edu> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343154228 19122 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2012 18:23:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:23:48 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1358-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jul 24 20:23:49 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 1Stjls-0008Md-9R for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:23:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 28458 invoked by uid 550); 24 Jul 2012 18:23:47 -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 28450 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2012 18:23:47 -0000 In-Reply-To: <500EE723.5050003@purdue.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1357 Archived-At: >>>> 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. >=20 > One of the advantages of musl is its LACK of configurability: If you = have =93musl=94, you know what precisely you're getting. >=20 > With valediction, > - Gregor Richards >=20 While I agree with the above, I still have a few objections :=20 - 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=