Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:06:00 -0700 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Fix function definitions. On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:48:55 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: .. > Perhaps including features.h without defining any feature test macros > at all could be construed as "asking for the kitchen sink", but I find > that interpretation a bit doubtful since the behavior (on glibc) is > unchanged from what they would have gotten without including it. > It's at least asking for BSD-style stuff, instead of straight ANSI. It certainly isn't asking for the full _GNU_SOURCE. > Could you give a summary of what the differences in _BSD_SOURCE and > _GNU_SOURCE are? My impression (possibly wrong) is that on glibc it's > pretty close to _GNU_SOURCE but without the nasty intentional GNU > incompatibilities (like GNU basename) and with some/most of the GNU or > Linux-specific extensions missing. ... > In any case I'm interested in adding _BSD_SOURCE if you or someone > else will help with getting it right. I started on <unistd.h>, and noticed a namespace issue: ualarm, usleep, and a few other functions should actually NOT be defined on _GNU_SOURCE (per the glibc headers and manpages), but only on _BSD_SOURCE or _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 Instead, they are defined only on _GNU_SOURCE. (There's also the L_SET & co. aliases for SEEK_* to do, but that's trivial). I'll have a patch once unistd.h is ready. There are a few more functions to move around, though--I have to locate all the problem ones. Should be ready in a day or two. Isaac Dunham
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.