Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> You could call it ‘musl?’ instead, to (hopefully) convey we’re
> interested in the C library specifically.

I used musl-libc? instead to make it more clear that we are interested
in the C library for this case-distinction. This is implemented in the
attached git-format-patch(1). Would that be suitable for inclusion in
Guix?

> No no, I meant something like:
> 
>   (or (false-if-exception (dynamic-func "readdir64" (dynamic-link)))
>       (dynamic-func "readdir" (dynamic-link)))
> 
> Of course, it’s not as simple as this because we’d rather have it
> integrated with ‘syscall->procedure’ (maybe by adding an
> #:alternative-name argument for the Musl name?), but you get the idea.

Also this check doesn't ensure struct layout compatibility, e.g. if
readdir uses 32-bit types so not sure if this is necessarily better
than the musl libc check I proposed above.

Let me know what you think.

Greetings
Sören