[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:38:01 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: why is there no __MUSL__ macro?
* J?rg Krause <jkrause@...teo.de> [2014-09-11 14:02:59 +0200]:
> On 09/11/2014 01:17 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >then _testing_ for conformance issues is the second try
> >if the default fails
>
> What do you mean with testing for concormance?
eg glibc scanf uses "%a" for its own extension by default
and c99 behaviour is only provided with appropriate cflags
if your project depends on %a scanf then you may need to
test for this conformance issue (instead of ifdef __GLIBC__
because they may change the behaviour later or the cflag
might not work on an older version etc)
of course there are cases when you depend on behaviour that
is not described by any standard in which case it is not
"conformance testing" but you still need some kind of testing
of the behaviour for portability
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
