Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:17:21 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: why is there no __MUSL__ macro? * Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org> [2014-09-11 12:09:07 +0100]: > >FFmpeg needs support for library features defined in POSIX.1-2001 with XSI extension and the standards below. Currently configure probes the host and target libc by checking for defined macros like __GLIBC__ and __UCLIBC__. In case of glibc and uclibc it sets -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 properly. > > Why not set this macro unconditionally ? > All standards-compliant libcs will make the correct symbols visible > if you define _XOPEN_SOURCE to a certain value. This include glibc, this has to be the most frequently asked question http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/FAQ#Q:_why_is_there_no_MUSL_macro_.3F and yes, assuming standard conformance by default is the sane thing to do then _testing_ for conformance issues is the second try if the default fails and only if testing is somehow difficult/inappropriate should one fall back to hardcoding behaviour for particular non-conforming systems in case of musl conformance bugs are fixed so you should report them instead of trying to work them around
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.