https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #20 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> --- > After both musl and LLVM are fixed, if you then *still* feel you > need "ws", then we can talk of course. Deal? No, it's not a deal. Your proposal is *breaking all currently-working versions* of clang because GCC wants to remove a documented public interface. I don't make users of one tool suffer because the maintainers of another tool broke things. That would not be responsible maintenance on my part. If GCC is committed to breaking this, I'll make a configure check to fallback to the C implementation if "ws" does not work, and ship patches in musl-cross-make to fix the GCC regression so that users who get the patch won't be affected.
