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.