[BusyBox] glibc regex vs uC-libc regexp

[Erik Andersen]

On Mon Aug 21, 2000 at 06:00:13PM +0200, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> Hi, I'm trying to compile busybox using uC-libc instead of glibc. It was fine
> with busybox 0.45 but in 0.46 grep and sed is using regex instead of regexp.
> My question is: are you planning to support uC-libc or should I try to
> replace uC-libc's regexp with regexp and regex from glibc?
> 

Well, if your are using the uC-libc source I've been working on,
then regex support is already in -- but there are still about 30
functions missing from uC-libc so busybox still won't compile.  I
even have a 'findmissing.sh' script I put together to find what
symbols are still missing and which files they are missing from.

I'm open to contributions... 

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--