From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7151 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: stephen Turner Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: MUSL Feature Detection Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:34:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20150304205458.GA14554@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <20150305083315.GW1264@example.net> <20150305085823.GX1264@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b673c7651b86d05108c4dbc X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1425569682 6438 80.91.229.3 (5 Mar 2015 15:34:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:34:42 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7164-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 05 16:34:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YTXnN-0001Uo-8n for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:34:41 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11294 invoked by uid 550); 5 Mar 2015 15:34:39 -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 11267 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2015 15:34:34 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=thnInD2dkgifAcQ3Krt7obRxIzHuT+mJdY8+yuyU2Yk=; b=QkS//DL3w6QnhgBeVNQ2fpKnvPJhlsUT/qEU9eGeKPKe7OymVxa0kTo2pvGjstR5ns 2Nd3mYYwQQptOdBu1OCNVaTm43N3M40KT6yq1kq6bVZAAJfcYtJB3tQb4vpGbvFDnyXk 19RNaf7m1AwvbtmQNrEyI3DW7KALZDpsY460DNIoMb8rPbo9pu6IAhBhE+oCIU2f7g5k MuLpbWGd+ZILjdR3KtnuDsmH3wulEH91tFLno0wXqxLnO7mEom6CHZkvuVCzjf2hTQ25 c7zMU6dL4Lvt9q9mfckVPzZz2cw1zZoaEyJaraVxqMWS6R/WsEUu35W4rihLsCD9Ztqe Vbzw== X-Received: by 10.236.26.138 with SMTP id c10mr7901166yha.36.1425569662218; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:34:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150305085823.GX1264@example.net> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7151 Archived-At: --047d7b673c7651b86d05108c4dbc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 5, 2015 3:58 AM, wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:33:15AM +0100, u-wsnj@aetey.se wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:54:58PM -0800, William Ahern wrote: > > > So, is there any sort of sanctioned way to detect MUSL at all, version or no > > > version? Is there any interest in supporting any kind of feature detection, > > > such as an API that communicates implementation choices wrt unspecified and > > > undefined behavior. > > Sorry for having made a too large citation. > > To be clear, I commented only on the part: > > > > So, is there any sort of sanctioned way to detect MUSL at all, version or no > > > version? > > [skipping my former message] > > As for your proposal > > > > Is there any interest in supporting any kind of feature detection, > > > such as an API that communicates implementation choices wrt unspecified and > > > undefined behavior. > > I did not mean to comment on this in the previous message. > > It looks otherwise reasonable but amounts to a standardization effort > for a new API with exactly the details intentionally omitted by > the existing standards. This might be hard to accomplish. > > Rune > Ok im going to show my programming ignorance here. Isnt libc a set of functions built to use I guess they are abi calls? The short almost command looking bits like segsrv? So then if someone wanted to test libc they would just have to write a macro or something that calls the functions individually and uses them in a small reversible if needed test case to say " yea we got that feature " ? That would also be good for verifying the libc isnt corrupted assuming there isnt already some test case like it. Wouldnt something like that be more helpful than a libc version and a assumption its standard full featured and unmodified? Thanks Stephen --047d7b673c7651b86d05108c4dbc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 5, 2015 3:58 AM, <u-wsnj@aetey.se> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:33:15AM +0100, u-wsnj@aetey.se wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:54:58PM -0800, William Ahern wrote: > > > So, is there any sort of sanctioned way to detect MUSL at al= l, version or no
> > > version? Is there any interest in supporting any kind of fea= ture detection,
> > > such as an API that communicates implementation choices wrt = unspecified and
> > > undefined behavior.
>
> Sorry for having made a too large citation.
>
> To be clear, I commented only on the part:
>
> > > So, is there any sort of sanctioned way to detect MUSL at al= l, version or no
> > > version?
>
> [skipping my former message]
>
> As for your proposal
>
> > > Is there any interest in supporting any kind of feature dete= ction,
> > > such as an API that communicates implementation choices wrt = unspecified and
> > > undefined behavior.
>
> I did not mean to comment on this in the previous message.
>
> It looks otherwise reasonable but amounts to a standardization effort<= br> > for a new API with exactly the details intentionally omitted by
> the existing standards. This might be hard to accomplish.
>
> Rune
>

Ok im going to show my programming ignorance here.

Isnt libc a set of functions built to use I guess they are a= bi calls? The short almost command looking bits like segsrv? So then if som= eone wanted to test libc they would just have to write a macro or something= that calls the functions individually and uses them in a small reversible = if needed test case to say " yea we got that feature " ? That wou= ld also be good for verifying the libc isnt corrupted assuming there isnt a= lready some test case like it.

Wouldnt something like that be more helpful than a libc vers= ion and a assumption its standard full featured and unmodified?

Thanks
Stephen

--047d7b673c7651b86d05108c4dbc--