Re: What would make musl 1.2?

[Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@stormmq.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1147 bytes --]

Do they use a third party support lib?

If it's possible to support use cases with a third party lib, then I'm less
concerned - provided that that lib also works with musl. Given the nature
of ucontext, that may not be so. A musl native solution would be optimal
for performance - and performance is a common reason for going down this
route. It allows for far greater scale in certain server designs then
either thread-per-connection or a thread-pool can do.

Out of interest, how many packages are in the OpenBSD repository? How does
it compare to Debian's, say? For me, Debian's repo contents is a yardstick
of what Linux + Musl could be expected to work with.

On 13 February 2015 at 15:08, Anthony J. Bentley <anthony@cathet.us> wrote:

> Raphael Cohn writes:
> > Is there any possibility of adding in the ucontext.h functions? I know
> > they're deprecated, but they're still widely used - particularly by go
> for
> > goroutines, IIRC.
>
> It's worth mentioning that OpenBSD doesn't have ucontext, so given the
> size of its package repository (which also contains Go), ucontext can't
> be *that* widely used.
>
> --
> Anthony J. Bentley
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1698 bytes --]