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