This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com 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: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002 ...


Thus spake Thomas Bushnell, BSG (tb@becket.net):
> > More importantly, even _if_ glibc were to make that choice, those stupid
> > programs would STILL not be portable.
> But, they would run better on GNU/Linux systems, which is the whole
> reason for having string functions in glibc in the first place.

No.  That's _exactly_ the point.
They would _not_ run better, because they still would have to include
a copy of strl* for systems which don't have it in glibc.  So you would
bloat glibc even further without any benefit whatsoever, because the
programs still need to include a copy of the code.

Look, libc is not a masturbation exercise.  It is there to satisfy a
standard called the Single Unix Specification.  Programs are asked to
expect exactly the features of the Single Unix Specification and none
more.  If they know of some libc that offers extended functionality,
they need to test for its presence before using it.

Felix


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