Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?

[Bruno Haible]

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> > The test as it stands is "error out on unsupported platforms unless
> >> > user specifies to use slow method".
> >> > My proposal is "On unsupported platforms, use the slow method instead
> >> > of erroring out."
> >
> > If we did this, nobody would report to bug-gnulib (or to the libc 
> > maintainer)
> > the need to port the functions. You would get a slow or buggy program
> > instead.
> 
> You can add a test program that detects an unported-to libc.  So they
> would get a slow program but also a make check failure.

Unfortunately, a majority of the users (between 50% and 90%, I got the
impression) runs "make; make install" without "make check". And many of
them would also ignore a #warning. To catch the attention of the users
and let them get in touch with us for porting the code, one really has
to provoke a build failure.

Bruno