Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:33:16 +0200 From: Jörg Krause <jkrause@...teo.de> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: why is there no __MUSL__ macro? On 09/11/2014 02:38 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * 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) I see. But I can avoid the GNU specific bevahiour by undefining _GNU_SOURCE if I want POSIX-conformance. In this case I do not need to test, but can rely on the libc of being conformal. Do I have this right? eg, in FFmpeg/libavutils uses strerror_r which is implemented as a XSI-compliant and a GNU-specific version. If I want to be sure to get the XSI-compliant version, I unset _GNU_SOURCE and set _XOPEN_SOURCE=600. So I do not need any further testing here, right?
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.