Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:12:13 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: af3c78886fd8 - main - Alter the prototype of qsort_r(3) to match POSIX, which adopted the glibc-based interface. Message-ID: <Y0AlrfmliBbu/t73@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <202209302230.28UMUq4I029171@gitrepo.freebsd.org> References: <202209302230.28UMUq4I029171@gitrepo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:30:52PM +0000, Xin LI wrote: > commit af3c78886fd8d4ca5eebdbe581a459a6f6d29d6a > > Alter the prototype of qsort_r(3) to match POSIX, which adopted the > glibc-based interface. > > Unfortunately, the glibc maintainers, despite knowing the existence > of the FreeBSD qsort_r(3) interface in 2004 and refused to add the > same interface to glibc based on grounds of the lack of standardization > and portability concerns, has decided it was a good idea to introduce > their own qsort_r(3) interface in 2007 as a GNU extension with a > slightly different and incompatible interface. > > With the adoption of their interface as POSIX standard, let's switch > to the same prototype, there is no need to remain incompatible. What a sad story, and so unfair to FreeBSD as we now have to deal with compatibility hacks (as mandree@ had said, having to parenthesize a function name is an abomination). Can you elaborate on technical side of things a bit? Is GNU qsort_r(3) interface, while incompatible, better than ours in 1-to-1 comparison, leaving the grief of not going with our older one aside? Thanks, ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Y0AlrfmliBbu/t73>