This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Wish for 2002 ...

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <> writes:

> Consider: if it isn't in glibc, it basically has to get added to
> autoconf.  One way or the other, the function is going to be part of the
> GNU Project, and it's going to have to be maintained.

autoconf contains no user C code, nor do I see any reason why it would
ever include strlcat and strlcpy implementations.

> Moreover, it seems really clear to me that making autoconf the fallback
> library for the functions that could be in glibc but aren't results in
> making those functions that much harder to maintain well.

autoconf is not a fallback library.

There have been discussions on the autoconf list about creating such a
fallback library as a separate project, but the obvious initial goal would
be to cover POSIX and X/Open functions that may be missing on some hosts,
not to support non-standard functions that can be handled other ways.

> One case of this is the optimization issue I mentioned earlier, but more
> to the point: whatever maintenance cost you see as being imposed by
> adding the function to glibc will be necessarily borne by autoconf, and
> in a way that is much more brittle and imposes much more hassle on all
> the related developers.

It is far from obvious to me that the autoconf project need ever care
about these functions.

Russ Allbery (             <>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]