This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author vstinner
Recipients gregory.p.smith, izbyshev, koobs, nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2019-01-14.16:50:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>

Q: Why is there no __MUSL__ macro?

It’s a bug to assume a certain implementation has particular properties rather than testing. So far, every time somebody’s asked for this with a particular usage case in mind, the usage case was badly wrong, and would have broken support for the next release of musl. The official explanation:

IMHO that's wrong. A software like Python heavily rely on the *exact* implementation of a libc. looks like a coarse heuristic to detect musl for example.

Until muscl decides to provide an "#ifdef __MUSL__"-like or any way that it's musl, I propose to not support musl: don't use os.posix_spawn() but _posixsubprocess.
Date User Action Args
2019-01-14 16:50:56vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, koobs, izbyshev, pablogsal, nanjekyejoannah
2019-01-14 16:50:54vstinnersetmessageid: <>
2019-01-14 16:50:54vstinnerlinkissue35537 messages
2019-01-14 16:50:54vstinnercreate