On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 04:37:39PM -0300, dgutson . wrote: > > > > >> So whenever we find a bug on musl we should just stop all our > > > > >> development until you've fixed the bug? > > > > > > > > > > No. As noted above, if you need to support systems that might have > bug > > > > > X, you write a test (configure-time or run-time as appropriate) to > > > > > detect bug X and handle it. > > > > > > > > Precisely, and __MUSL__ would be really useful for this. > > > > > > Absolutely not. __MUSL__ would not tell you anything about whether bug > > > X is present. It would facilitate permanently assuming "musl has bug > > > X" because you observed bug X on musl at one point in the past. > > > > > > > Then turn __MUSL__ a number holding the version, as in cplusplus, etc, so > > people can do > > > > #if __MUSL__ < someversion > > #endif > > > > and it will be clear what happens and will solve the chronology issue. > > This is a never-ending FAQ tarpit. Version numbers DO NOT WORK to > indicate presence or absence of bugs, because distros will backport > fixes. Apparently you never dealt with the hell of Redhat shipping > "2.6.x" kernels that had all the bugfixes from late 3.x, and > applications trying to infer stuff from the version number. DON'T DO > THAT. If you need to know if a bug or a feature is present, TEST FOR > IT. > OK my last comment. If you are 100% positive that there will never be a negative number or a wraparound due to types conversion, then I suggest to add some compiler-dependant pragma warning disabling locally in those lines. We cannot afford to loose static checking capabilities of a compiler because of a very specific occurrence. And sorry for spamming this thread. > Rich > -- Who’s got the sweetest disposition? One guess, that’s who? Who’d never, ever start an argument? Who never shows a bit of temperament? Who's never wrong but always right? Who'd never dream of starting a fight? Who get stuck with all the bad luck?