On Dec 29, 2014 11:51 AM, "Richard Gorton" <
rcgorton@cognitive-electronics.com> wrote:
>
>
> That is a single example of some of the code in a library which is NOT
musl.
> There are other places in the example library which know about __APPLE__
or __GLIBC__ or __sun__
>
> My thought is to use __MUSL__ in those libraries as appropriate in place
of __<architecture>__ as the backing libc is musl.
>
> And said use of __MUSL__ is what I am interested in feedback about.
>

The intent of not providing it is to force applications to use a portable
interface rather then being libc specific. So, everyone's leaping to try
and find ways to not need that.
Sorry for the mismatched expectations.