[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should Glibc API be changed?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Should Glibc API be changed? |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:56:41 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I'm disappointed you chose a private mailing list for the discussion.
Of course I did. This a sensitive issue; it is best to discuss it
without an audience.
> I'm puzzled why you think this is a major change. It only affects Emacs
A change that breaks other programs, and does not offer a trivial way
to fix them, is a major change. Affecting Emacs is already plenty --
and other programs might be affected to.
> The research in the parent thread suggests that I was mistaken and Emacs
> should compile just fine after removal of the API.
I suspect a misunderstanding. You may be using the term "API" in a
narrow sense. I mean, everything about how programs can use Glibc.
This is not just about whether Emacs (and maybe other programs)
_compile_ without errors. It's about whether they still work as
intended.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: Removal of unexec support from glibc malloc, Ali Bahrami, 2016/01/18
Re: Removal of unexec support from glibc malloc, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/18
Re: Removal of unexec support from glibc malloc, Ken Raeburn, 2016/01/18
Re: Removal of unexec support from glibc malloc, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/18