Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?

[Paul Eggert]

On 06/24/2012 03:42 PM, John Spencer wrote:
> anything is better than a failed build.

Isn't this discussion moot now, with respect to musl?
That is, I thought the problem with musl and gnulib
is fixed, so we don't have a failed build now.

If this discussion is about what to do with some other
new standard C library that gnulib isn't ported to yet,
let's wait until that happens before worrying about it.
Perhaps by then the necessary primitives will be standardized
so the problem won't come up then either.