Remove comments about wordexp.

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 7 deletions

diff --git a/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt b/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt
index 7760d2321..e557b56be 100644
--- a/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt
+++ b/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt
@@ -22,7 +22,8 @@ all your binaries.
 uClibc calling malloc(0) returns a NULL.  The behavior of malloc(0) is listed
 as implementation-defined by SuSv3, so both libraries are equally correct.
 This difference also applies to realloc(NULL, 0).  I personally feel glibc's
-behavior is not particularly safe.
+behavior is not particularly safe.  To enable glibc behavior, one has to
+explicitly enable the MALLOC_GLIBC_COMPAT option.
 
 4.1) glibc's malloc() implementation has behavior that is tunable via the
 MALLOC_CHECK_ environment variable.  This is primarily used to provide extra
@@ -62,14 +63,11 @@ then the long double support is quite limited.
 11) uClibc's libcrypt does not support the reentrant crypt_r, setkey_r and
 encrypt_r, since these are not required by SuSv3.
 
-12) uClibc does not implement wordexp()
+12) uClibc directly uses the kernel types to define most opaque data types.
 
+13) uClibc directly uses the linux kernel's arch specific 'stuct stat'.
 
-13) uClibc directly uses the kernel types to define most opaque data types.
-
-14) uClibc directly uses the linux kernel's arch specific 'stuct stat'.
-
-15) Add other things here as they come up......
+14) Add other things here as they come up......