On Wednesday 23 November 2011 18:39:50 Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:35:24PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > at this point, you're just wasting people's time. uClibc is not broken. > > you're barking up the wrong tree. > > This sounds unsettlingly drepperesque...
there is no information to show uClibc is broken. i don't think it's broken. glibc doesn't seem to have a problem with building abort() with noreturn. so until there is more information that shows a change in uClibc is necessary, he is wasting people's time. if saying no to changes that lack any real details is "drepperesque" in your opinion, then i guess that's your problem. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
