On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 10:19 AM Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> wrote:

> Am Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 02:14:30PM +0100 schrieb Alastair Houghton:
> > This is a somewhat irrelevant distraction and I rather wish I hadn’t
> > mentioned that as an example of odd behaviour.  I’m well aware that
> > you cannot copy or assign `pthread_mutex_t` values in general (and I
> > understand the reasons why).
> >
> > Please can we instead focus on the issue of whether or not musl should
> > have `__MUSL__` and `__MUSL_MINOR__`.
> >
>
> 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.
>

I think you can say this and still add the macros.

Perhaps it's true that nobody has valid reasons, but the fact that it comes
up repeatedly says that some people don't understand this or perhaps they
have valid reasons yet to be considered.

I guess I don't understand the opposition -- is there any downside to musl
to having the macros defined, necessary or not? (I'm saying this as a
minimalist, so I'm surprising myself here.)

-- 
Andrew Bell
andrew.bell.ia@gmail.com