Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?

2012-06-11 Thread Isaac Dunham
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:00:54 -0700 Paul Eggert wrote: > On 06/09/2012 11:05 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > Is there any reason not to merge > > Performance, surely. But if there's > consensus that performance does not matter that > much with musl, perhaps we should def

Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?

2012-06-10 Thread Isaac Dunham
dn't it be available whenever there's no alternative? Is there any reason not to merge the #else if SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS sections with the #else #error sections, either with #pragma warn instead of #error, or without any messages? Isaac Dunham