From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1E01F910 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.b="l8ddJ8Ex"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B8E382FAD5 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:13:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E8B8E382FAD5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668683636; bh=V/Z/+/pzky8Cy+w0lTbjtbkXx82arBYsW+nUI6uhIN8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=l8ddJ8Ex0iy3g+oaapeEQHZxx0QqvI1U/njfYVGB/+abyTYg5DHHDLIGN9YkZS4XE ic+G5h1pScTCIyCGfohseiiK7BMXKjKOH2FuP3ycQoj8A2Dxu5sTc4gKK+V7GzYGv/ deT5d4MX06WWPD2B+oPC30kTCgP2aWCrBO90/8SA= Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F1B3946C34 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:13:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 55F1B3946C34 Received: from [IPv6:240e:358:1127:2800:dc73:854d:832e:3] (unknown [IPv6:240e:358:1127:2800:dc73:854d:832e:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9569165CBE; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:13:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <831230ff0b357c92178c128c99da69788171e84b.camel@xry111.site> Subject: Re: Why is glibc not extensive? To: A Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 19:13:24 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <3a62e9dd71c1e542e38d6444c955a44185e07936.camel@xry111.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Xi Ruoyao via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Xi Ruoyao Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 16:38 +0530, A wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 4:29 PM Xi Ruoyao wrote: > >=20 > > On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 16:24 +0530, A wrote: > > > So, do glibc developers also take care of musl, msvcrt, etc.? I didn'= t > > > know this. And if not, then why would glibc developers bother about > > > other libc implementations. > >=20 > > Because if the fancy features are supported by Glibc but not other libc > > implementations, the programmers will likely re-implement the feature > > anyway because they want there program functional with different libc > > implementations. >=20 > They will not implement again. They will copy from glibc.Currently, > everyone is implementing their own and using lots of man hours. > Copying is 5 minutes job. Copying from Glibc to another project (which is not under GPL or LGPL) is not allowed by LGPL. So why not just post your implementation and tell others to copy from it? --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University