[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <503896A9.9010907@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:11:05 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Best bikeshed ever (feature test macros)
On 8/24/12 11:41 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> Hi all,
> 1. Leaving everything as it is.
>
> PROS: Obtaining conforming standard C environment is easy. Detecting
> (for the purpose of flaming or fixing) programs failing to use feature
> test macros correctly is also easy.
>
> CONS: Basically every program requires a feature test macro to be
> added to CFLAGS in order to compile it. Using -D_GNU_SOURCE works 99%
> of the time, but the other 1% of the time it will _break_ programs
> that are already correctly using -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 or similar by
> introducing nonstandard functions that pollute the namespace and
> conflict with the application. Thus it becomes really hard to have a
> universal working build procedure. It's also very hard to work around
> broken build systems (like GCC's bootstrapping) that refuse to honor
> your custom CFLAGS.
Would be nice to see which would require something more first. The
current musl seems working decently as-is.
lu
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.
