Christophe Pettus:
> Given the musl (still?) does not define a preprocessor macro specific to it, is there a way of improving the test in
pg_status.cto catch this case? It seems wrong that the current test passes a case that doesn't actually work.
The missing macro is on purpose and unlikely to change:
https://openwall.com/lists/musl/2013/03/29/13
I also found this thread, which discusses exactly our case:
https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2022/08/17/1
Some quotes from that thread:
> I understand that what Postgres et al are doing is a nasty hack.
And:
> Applications that *really* want setproctitle type functionality can
> presumably do something like re-exec themselves with a suitably large
> argv[0] to give them safe space to overwrite with their preferred
> message, rather than UB trying to relocate the environment (and auxv?
> how? they can't tell libc they moved it) to some other location.
Could that be a more portable way of doing this?
Best,
Wolfgang