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: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002 ...

Felix von Leitner <> writes:

> Thus spake Thomas Bushnell, BSG (
> > > 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.

They would run better on a GNU/Linux system, because the
implementation in glibc would be better.

> 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.

No.  A thousand times no.  glibc is not purely there to satisfy some
wanking standards board.

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