From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <musl-return-21490-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95D062EC0A
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 23:43:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 32134 invoked by uid 550); 27 Oct 2024 22:43:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
x-ms-reactions: disallow
Received: (qmail 32102 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2024 22:43:50 -0000
X-Virus-Scanned: SPAM Filter at disroot.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail;
	t=1730069022; bh=0ZP2SD82ambrNLs7QAT+YvLm7DAtQ1SBr0qaaZDxXqQ=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=Bei7j3GuQEP9pB+cRMci1ytPLnEj3tjPPm2PpRgQx7xyIYB9q2cKy1Xlj+qOBswVO
	 3cwVTP8Ys8KzkLLmb4KPBDD0u8XxOZiiDG7p+hGPoiqLBCYmCv1kFJoZU/FnLl5yYH
	 fPw4z3TPlqtNM1BCbv1Q6oWi3zWn7CWkMfZlWMDuIzU5yUtSOT9tQtY67+CKrIEbd+
	 QqPV0qL0UuzLdb6LmUIz60HH0fDoU6uHMmMSJizXad8GtEby1Fqp0lVJU86oMn7ji+
	 n71A9SJjRZJyH52Kkvxw1iRidwZvHqne2rKT5U/4qFBaloTu1ONGGnuND/xey4TLCx
	 av/V9Cl1GMljg==
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 22:43:27 +0000
From: Yao Zi <ziyao@disroot.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <Zx7CDzXFFHNtAIAv@pineapple>
References: <878quc7xzy.fsf@alyssa.is>
 <20241025201011.GY10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <874j4zoob8.fsf@alyssa.is>
 <emc51f6a2f-139b-4697-abbd-aee651abe1d9@84cd4237.com>
 <ZxynqAh9f332yOSu@voyager>
 <emc3229b12-3f5c-4847-9cc7-49c0f43ca089@b9cddb74.com>
 <ZxztEfJLtCyZ_x26@voyager>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZxztEfJLtCyZ_x26@voyager>
Subject: Re: [musl] Prototypes without implementations

On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 03:22:25PM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> See above. Failing with ENOSYS and no side effects is a perfectly
> conforming implementation of most POSIX functions.

Yes, failing with ENOSYS could be conformant. But ioperm() and iopl()
aren't really a POSIX thing. Why make more pitfalls instead of easing
everyone's life?

For stuff like ioctl(), I do agree with that standing with POSIX is
correct, but in this case we aren't getting anything valuable with a
stub implementation. And I think it is not a hard work to omit both the
implementation and declaration on archs without these syscalls.

Thanks,
Yao Zi