[SSSD] [PATCH] Use custom implementation of glibc extension

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Tue May 27 08:23:19 UTC 2014


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:08:02AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:36:29AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > On (27/05/14 09:27), Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 09:17 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >> On (27/05/14 09:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > >> >On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 00:19 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >> >> ehlo,
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> strchrnul() and mempcpy() are GNU extensions to libc
> > >> >> This patch add configure time test for this functions and provide
> > >> >> custom implementation if functions are not available.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> patch is attached.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> LS
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> sssd-devel mailing list
> > >> >> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >> >> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
> > >> >
> > >> >Hello Lukas,
> > >> >
> > >> >is it really necessary to have two definitions of
> > >> >mempcpy()?
> > >> Yes,
> > >> 
> > >> libsss_crypt.so is built either with nss or with libcrypto.
> > >> Look into Makefile.am for details.
> > >> 
> > >> LS
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> sssd-devel mailing list
> > >> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
> > >
> > >Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just thinking if you could move the
> > >definition into separate file and thus avoid code duplication...
> > >
> > No, there will be no benefit.
> > There isn't any shared file between two implementation of libsss_crypt.
> > static function can be easily inlined and I don't want to have conditional
> > definition of function in header file.
> 
> I wonder if using a "library" like gnulib might be useful in the long
> run to handle cases like this? I'm not saying we should do it now, but
> since you are currently looking at glibc, XOPEN and other extension I
> wonder what's your opinion here?
> 
> bye,
> Sumit

Yes, I prefer using code that was tested by others as well.

Also, unlike the includes pushed yesterday, I would prefer either a test
for these functions or even better, an instance of the target system in
the CI system Nikolai is building.

With our nightly builds and the usual tests, there is no chance we know
this code works properly.



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list