On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:55 AM Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurt...@neratec.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I found a proprietary package stopped working after moving from glibc to musl > and > ended up identifying a difference in processing of ether_aton(). > > In musl, the ether_addr string is expected to be NULL terminated (see > https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/network/ether.c#n20), while other > libc implementations are less strict (i.e. only evaluate the leading > ether_addr > and ignoring subsequent chars). > > Tried to search the net for a reliable spec on whether it must be NULL > terminated > or not, but found nothing specific. > > > What do you guys think, is musl just more strict here and therefore correct, > or is > the less strict behaviour of the other implementations the way to go? Probably the musl behavior is correct. > > > Cheers, > Zefir > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
