Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h

[Martin Galvan <omgalvan.86@gmail.com>]

2018-03-15 15:53 GMT-03:00 Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>:
> In any case it's not a bug in musl. The code is perfectly valid C. If
> the compiler is producing a warning for it, either ignore it or ask
> the compiler to stop.

Just because some code is valid C, it doesn't mean it's not buggy.

>> The compiler warnings aren't being wrongly produced. musl will indeed
>> perform a signed-to-unsigned conversion here.
>
> Because that's how the C language works.

Yes. And gcc has checks to try and make up for C's weak typing.

While your definition of "bug" is debatable, IMHO if a commonly used
option causes application builds to break due to some library, the
library has a usability issue. The issue is even bigger when we're
talking about something as core as the standard C library.

>> 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.