On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:30:05AM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:

[cut]

>
> [T.J. ] It should be important to note that a segfault can be caused by any
> number of things, that can be unrelated to systemd itself. I do grant you
> that systemd has its share of undesirables, but it could be exposing a flaw
> in the lower libraries as well. A lot of the time, the glibc library is
> also to blame. If there was ever any piece of software on Linux that needs
> a serious overhaul, beyond X11, it is the libc and GCC suite. That is why
> a lot of people are eying over Clang very seriously. For some, it does have
> to do with the GPL, but for many it has to do with the fact that GCC is a
> mess. One of the previous maintainers, Ulrich Drepper, was famous for
> ignoring bug reports.
>

A segfault is never due to glibc (at least, not in 99.999999999999% of
the cases), but to a messy usage of the memory by the program that
uses glibc. If that was the case, i.e. that glibc was to be blamed
for segfaults, then all the software you use should crash every now
and then, just as soon as you hit one of these mystical "glibc bugs
that cause segfaults".

So please, do not blame glibc for faults that are not its own. On the
other hand, the reasons some people are using Clang have nothing to do
with the (wrong and unsopported) assumption that gcc or glibc are a
can of worms and produce bugged software... It is bad programmers who
produce bugged software, and in my little experience only C newbies
blame the libc when their software segfaults...

If you can prove that glibc/gcc is causing the segfaults of systemd
then please provide links to those *facts*, otherwise what you are
saying is just unsopported FUD.

MyCents

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]