From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 22679 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2023 14:46:50 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 Jul 2023 14:46:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 1063 invoked by uid 550); 7 Jul 2023 14:46:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 1031 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2023 14:46:47 -0000
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: z8YN45Xwn53Xx4C_T4SRtDZA_DsK2THM
X-Proofpoint-GUID: z8YN45Xwn53Xx4C_T4SRtDZA_DsK2THM
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.591,18.0.957
 definitions=2023-07-07_10:2023-07-06,2023-07-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=interactive_user_notspam
 policy=interactive_user score=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0
 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=848
 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2305260000
 definitions=main-2307070136
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from :
 content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version : subject : date :
 references : to : in-reply-to : message-id; s=20180706;
 bh=rys/6SXcB4U/618wNv70ZtxAi0iZ/7got+UQ4Bet9p0=;
 b=LoPGPtcS44QuFfHuR3p/U2zYGTXHpaCnVlT5qY3MxKLxsUeEkB00ZPJmiXjZS/uH0EHa
 o5OsNowc96USCYIkNpWjSWSy4soPtri7UqGCYsIBBlqOBwtwLtpB5hKjl7XMQMegJ32/
 NYNXxtjLAr8XowsOgrbeyfwGWxwcJkkjDHONOm9dxVc3xgyseg+Kc23bGE0AUG9p3CIM
 e5rmlCwdHEY3FyX1NP3PoXs+v5yP/2Wb5zvBOB3lSsi+PxHKsw/gxgGe6IybK8zXZ9Er
 q/uCyTv86mia+FuI+LfaVTBrFYq49mMw4y88oguweMAmalQDuvDSVyzA1u3RkPgORetB Tg==
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 14dc138f66d48087821ca031f1b11e6a
X-Va-E-CD: 56ab0e176e6e23b7c0c7f8bb71e3663a
X-Va-R-CD: d86870e6d2b7150a65f5397c4f4f694c
X-Va-ID: 418e4e19-be36-47ea-b642-9d36f48b724a
X-Va-CD: 0
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 14dc138f66d48087821ca031f1b11e6a
X-V-E-CD: 56ab0e176e6e23b7c0c7f8bb71e3663a
X-V-R-CD: d86870e6d2b7150a65f5397c4f4f694c
X-V-ID: a122bdd4-5e84-4824-bbaf-3d093f1a21f0
X-V-CD: 0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.591,18.0.957
 definitions=2023-07-07_10:2023-07-06,2023-07-07 signatures=0
From: Alastair Houghton <ahoughton@apple.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3767.100.2\))
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2023 15:46:24 +0100
References: <309EDCC9-2402-46B5-BDBD-B96677E470DD@apple.com>
 <20230707124722.GE4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <054B1907-817E-496D-9F83-7FBE7AB0111A@apple.com> <ZKge4q4QjB7j0ooB@voyager>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
In-reply-to: <ZKge4q4QjB7j0ooB@voyager>
Message-id: <7E007FD3-0D16-45A8-904A-CB72B563BA4B@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3767.100.2)
Subject: Re: [musl] __MUSL__ macro

On 7 Jul 2023, at 15:19, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> wrote:
>=20
> The counter-examples are not irrelevant. That is precisely the point.
> Nobody advocating for implementation identification macros has so far
> given a valid reason to do so. Every single one so far has turned out =
to
> be spurious. Well, I tell a lie, there is one case with a shadow of
> reason behind it: Header-only libraries.

And cross-compilation when you can=E2=80=99t detect runtime behaviour at =
configuration time.

Those two are actually what I care about, as it happens.

> I remain in staunch opposition to identification macros, ... [snip]

So I gather.

> None of this matters one bit, because Rich is God as far as musl is
> concerned, and he has not weighed in yet.

:-)  I think you crossed over with him there.

It=E2=80=99s fine.  There=E2=80=99s no point in arguing; we clearly =
aren=E2=80=99t going to agree here.  I think it=E2=80=99s a shame =
because I think it makes things unnecessarily worse for everyone than =
they have to be (people will still try to detect musl, as in that Stack =
Overflow post, but they=E2=80=99ll do so in a less robust manner, and it =
makes supporting cross-compilation for musl targets and header only =
libraries that much harder).

Kind regards,

Alastair.