Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 22:47:40 -0700 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] _BSD_SOURCE for unistd.h, take 2 > > Still, I tend to prefer having some respect for even unofficial > > namespaces. .. > A more general issue: this patch addresses _BSD_SOURCE enabling the > nonstandard functions, but what should the behavior of _BSD_SOURCE be > with regards to functions that are in XSI but not POSIX base? My > inclination is to make it so _BSD_SOURCE implies _XOPEN_SOURCE and > _POSIX_C_SOURCE everywhere (i.e. add it to all the big || lists in all > the headers) unless there's a strong argument against doing this. As > it stands, defining just _BSD_SOURCE but not _POSIX_C_SOURCE or > _XOPEN_SOURCE would leave you with a fairly broken set of headers, I > think.. There seemed to be large numbers of functions that were _XOPEN_SOURCE but not _BSD_SOURCE, if I'm remembering right. It seemed to mostly fall somewhere between *old* X/Open and POSIX, with some extensions; it definitely should imply POSIX, but I'd avoid *automatically* adding X/Open (see previous comment about respecting nonstandard namespaces). It would be annoying to write a program, use -D_BSD_SOURCE, have it work, move to another libc, and have to change CFLAGS--especially if that's because of disregard for the namespace. In some places assuming _XOPEN_SOURCE would be appropriate; we should look at each case. 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.