Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:17:03 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Missing header(s) On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:24:59AM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote: > ar.h is a header that defines struct ar_hdr and several components. Yeah, I've gotten this report before and just haven't gotten around to adding it. I have no objection to adding ar.h though. > Needed for at least GNU make-3.81 (I'm sticking with the last GPL2+ > version, myself). Doesn't 3.81 already have some important bugs you need to patch anyway? If so you could add ar.h at the same time. This won't be needed for musl once I get ar.h added, but it would make the resulting build more portable anyway. > By the way, I've put together a sys/cdefs.h header that gets a lot > of stuff to compile; ~95% of it is backwards-compatability macros. > If you want, I can submit it; I'd add I wouldn't mind seeing it, and as long as it's clean I'll probably add it... > #include'ing <sys/cdefs.h> is semi-portable, though (NetBSD, GNU > #libc)--and the only option if you need to support some old systems > #as well as c99. I'm confused how it would be necessary for this. The __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ macros give you all you need to make the appropriate definitions yourself if you really need to support pre-standardized C. If you just need to support C89 and C99, you'd rarely have to test anything anyway; just use the intersection of the 2 languages (which is equivalent to C89, except that you can't use C99 keywords like inline, restrict, _Bool, etc.). As such, I still see apps that include sys/cdefs.h as buggy. Rich
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.