This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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: C11 threads ABI questions - enum values


> My motive for wanting success to have a value of 0 is that it allows

Yeah, I'm fine with that one.  I meant the argument value cases.

> For mutex types, I suppose there's some risk of "sloppily" passing a
> literal 0 without meaning mtx_plain, but I think it's a small issue
> and I hope we can agree that keeping a common set of constants for ABI
> purposes is of more value.

We're not going to set a precedent of clearing ABI choices with another
implementation or letting another implementation's past choices dictate
to us.  Of course, harmonization is a good thing.  But you need to be
realistic about the relative positions of musl and glibc in terms of
installed base and de facto standards for GNU/Linux systems.  

This is a brand new feature and musl has few users even for features that
have existed for any length of time.  Are you really saying you cannot
change your recent ABI choices for new things that nobody is actually using?


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