From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9852 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daiki Ueno Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gnu.gettext.bugs,gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [musl] Re: AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols? Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:26:53 +0900 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1459996039 28552 80.91.229.3 (7 Apr 2016 02:27:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 02:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-gettext-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org, musl-ZwoEplunGu1jrUoiu81ncdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org To: Masanori Ogino Original-X-From: bug-gettext-bounces+gcggb-bug-gettext=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Thu Apr 07 04:27:10 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcggb-bug-gettext@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1anzf3-0000zp-Dx for gcggb-bug-gettext@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 04:27:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47002 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anzf2-0007AI-Ip for gcggb-bug-gettext@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:27:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43628) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anzey-00079z-Mv for bug-gettext-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:27:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anzev-0005o6-Dq for bug-gettext-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:27:04 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:53432) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anzev-0005o2-A9; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:27:01 -0400 Original-Received: from du-a.org ([219.94.251.20]:35658 helo=localhost.localdomain) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1anzeu-0000ow-Cq; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:27:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Masanori Ogino's message of "Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:23:41 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: bug-gettext-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for GNU gettext List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gettext-bounces+gcggb-bug-gettext=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Original-Sender: bug-gettext-bounces+gcggb-bug-gettext=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.gnu.gettext.bugs:1174 gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9852 Archived-At: Masanori Ogino writes: >> So I suppose the only feasible option here is to somehow whitelist the >> implementations by checking macros or symbols. Does musl provides >> anything like that[1]? > > No, it doesn't on purpose. Here is the entry on this topic in the FAQ: > http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/FAQ#Q:_why_is_there_no_MUSL_macro_.3F > > Also, I'd like to point out some detailed explanations in a recent discussion: > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/6 > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/7 > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/9 Thanks for the information. > That is why I proposed to have a blacklist of "broken" implementations > as an option. > > AFAIK there have already been some blacklisting in autotools e.g. > checking the version of glibc to reject specific broken implementation > of a function. Thus, I think it's acceptable to use a blacklist. What > do you think about it? Yes, that sounds like a good idea. But I guess we then need to collect information about incompatible implementations. In this regard I'm actually not sure if the gettext-tools test coverage can be used as an indicator of compatibility. By the way, musl defines __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION in the same way as glibc: #define __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION(major) ((major) == 0 ? 1 : -1) Is major = 1 + minor = 1 actually supported in musl? After briefly checking Solaris 11 variants have: #define __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION(m) \ ((((m) == 0) || ((m) == 1)) ? 1 : -1) Regards, -- Daiki Ueno