reentrant functions

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Tuesday 10 June 2008 07:23, Robin Getz wrote:
> If you are talking about deviating from the "just recompiling" mantra - even 
> to handle corner case error conditions, I need to rethink using uClibc going 
> forward.
> 
> The expectation is functionality as specified in IEEE Std 1003.1
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/ 

I don't see the point to repeat again that in this case, in my opinion,
it does not matter.

We are simply disagreeing on this.
I have no problem with sometimes having a minority opinion.

Since majority opinion seems to be to not use malloc, it can be reverted.

> It seems like more and more functions that you are modifying are deviating 
> from the standard, defined interface.

More and more? I don't remember changing anything else in "standard-deviating"
way, modulo bugs (that getpot embarrasment). Other changes were falling
into two categories:
1. Reduce memory usage ("smallints")
2. Fix three-year old bugs from uclibc bugzilla and failing uclibc testsuite.

> I always thought the project goals  
> were:
>  1) standard functionality
>  2) minimum size 
> 
> Have things changed so it is the other order? Changing the project goals is 
> something I would not support.

Perhaps I am personally trying to push "minimum size" more because of busybox.
It's an itch for me when I see 70k of memory wasted.
--
vda