Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:31:26 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: cluts review On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:00:02AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 05:54:23PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > OK. Why the "#define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L //sigaction" vs. "#define > > _XOPEN_SOURCE //sigaction" inconsistency, though? I think _XOPEN_SOURCE > > is a safer bet here. > > I would really put this in the makefile for consistency. In principle, > the values of feature test macros could lead to different versions of > certain functions being used, possibly even with different > interfaces/ABI, and cause problems with linking together object files > compiled with different settings. This makes sense to me. Historically, I tend to use the #define thing, but you have a valid point for doing it in the Makefile instead. > I think it's pretty hard to test functions that are part of a standard > that depends on and includes C99, while not requiring a (mostly) > C99-supporting compiler. Of course, those newer functions would need to be skipped when cluts is built and run on an older system. > snprintf is C99 and POSIX and I think it's pretty reasonable to rely > on it. Agreed. > Legacy systems can implement it as a hideous wrapper for > tmpfile(), fprintf(), and fread() if they're not willing to fix their > libcs. :-) Yes, this is hideous. Alexander
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.