On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:41:45AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 06/18/13 10:03, Rich Felker wrote: > > 1. In the #else case, instead of #error, put if(0).... > > 2. Write a "portable" version of the replacement code > > How about this idea instead? > > 3. Modify gl_FUNC_FFLUSH_STDIN so that it checks at > compile-time whether it's using musl, and succeeds > in that case. > > This should be more robust than (1), and easier to implement > than (2). Can you suggest code along those lines? And if > it's nontrivial, would you be willing to sign copyright > papers assigning the code to the FSF?
We've been through that discussion before, and even if it were feasible, it wouldn't help on any new system except musl. Of my two proposed fixes, the first would fix the issue on any future system that's not broken (not just existing ones), but would obviously not support future broken systems. The second proposed fix should support any future system, but would be a bit more costly, assuming it's even possible. To revisit why I don't like your proposed fix, for every bug we could get fixed by making an easy way for applications to test "is this musl?", we would have something like 10 new bugs created by people doing that. This is not just speculation; it's based on questions we get on the list and on IRC. Your idea of using such a test in the form of "if (is_musl) assume_non_broken();" is the first proposed use of this form I've seen. Every other request for an easy "if (is_musl)" test have been from people who wanted to do something that would cause bad breakage with future versions of musl. Rich
