Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:36:55 -0600 From: Laine Gholson <laine.gholson@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: SUSv2 c89 compilation environment symbols missing then remove the macros, half-supporting something is worse than not supporting it at all or add the rest as glibc does (in bits/confname.h line 572) On 12/30/16 16:54, Rich Felker wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 04:44:04PM -0600, Laine Gholson wrote: >> yes I know SUSv2 is obsolete, but then why does musl even bother to define _SC_XBS5_ILP32_OFF32 then? > > I'm not sure; I suppose it could be removed. Since we match the > numeric values of the macros on glibc (for limited abi compat) I > probably just included all the ones glibc had. > > Rich > > >> On 12/30/16 16:42, Rich Felker wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 04:30:13PM -0600, Laine Gholson wrote: >>>> musl defines, e.g _SC_XBS5_ILP32_OFF32, but not _CS_XBS5_ILP32_OFF32_CFLAGS >>>> see http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/getconf.html >>> >>> That's an ancient standard; the current one is here: >>> >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/getconf.html >>> >>> It does not mention the macros you asked about. But it's also >>> describing the getconf utility, not the unistd.h header. The latter is >>> here: >>> >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/unistd.h.html >>> >>> and I don't see anything about the above macros. For what it's worth, >>> even the old version corresponding to the page you linked doesn't seem >>> to specify them: >>> >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/unistd.h.html >>> >>> Rich >>>
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.