From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3361C3858D20 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 12:09:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3361C3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1675426195; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=61WWYkKg5WcwoqFQq2je2wdunAiVTYZduftqqPuq0Ys=; b=Ot7oCXRAiY9q14Cj3JKXhX8of+yjBknsBdqCi0FT+HykfhFUPFeb6vfdweFokyzafbfGRG 7B3IM3Dli8/3kXqspxzOBP+jWd0HUpsW1xl6wTyjxKJy5Y8uhLQAJAkIe77W1iFVi7dVo5 IZzTIGbI2u4KyCuAOBdzZ8G+nqED34s= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-527-9t0tNvT9M0WcfV8ynPaJbQ-1; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 07:09:45 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 9t0tNvT9M0WcfV8ynPaJbQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3623802314; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 12:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from calimero.vinschen.de (unknown [10.39.192.107]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C08B0492B15; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 12:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 80E5EA80C32; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:09:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:09:43 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Ignacio Vargas Cc: newlib@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Possible argp implementation questions regarding the use of Message-ID: Reply-To: newlib@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: Ignacio Vargas , newlib@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Feb 2 15:41, Ignacio Vargas wrote: > As I mentioned when I e-mailed from outside the mailing list a while ago, > I'm working on an very stripped down argp baremetal implementation that I > would like to contribute to newlib at some point. As Corinna pointed out I > don't want it to be GPLed so I've been writing an implementation from > scratch that doesn't even depend on getopt. > > I have a question regarding the use (or lack thereof) of . > > Context: For the target we support we can't use newlib's printing functions > because we can't provide an implementation of all the required OS > subroutines. This is due to working on a very limited target. This is all to > say, our stripped down argp can't include , and in the future I > would like to contribute it to newlib in a way that doesn't require > including . > > Question: From what I've been told by colleagues, newlib aims to be a very > "drop-in" replacement for a regular stdlib. So I'm asking if it would be an > issue to contribute my argp version that: > 1. Already deviates from glibc's in the fact that it's a stripped-down > version that doesn't implement all the features. And also deviates in small > ways in certain features it does support. > > 2. Has an additional mechanism for the user to specify which printing > function to use, instead of just including and using the provided > printing functions. With the goal of having wider support across baremetal > targets. Rather than just theorizing about it, what about just sending the patchset in git format-patch --cover-letter style, so we can discuss this over the living code? Corinna