Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatibleThat's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatiblePosted May 20, 2009 18:01 UTC (Wed) by xilun (subscriber, #50638)In reply to: That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible by dwheeler Parent article: EGLIBC: Not a fork, but a glibc distribution
I guess they want two-way ABI compatibility on systems where glibc already works fine.
(Log in to post comments)
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible Posted May 21, 2009 4:30 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Yes, exactly. A binary that works with eglibc should work with glibc, so eglibc has to be a proper subset. It's supposed to be glibc with the option to strip it down, hence the "e".
|
|||||||||||||