[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54118F73.2020807@posteo.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:02:59 +0200
From: Jörg Krause <jkrause@...teo.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: why is there no __MUSL__ macro?
On 09/11/2014 01:17 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * 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
I see. So it should be safe to assume standard conformance of the libc
and set _XOPEN_SOURCE properly.
>
> then _testing_ for conformance issues is the second try
> if the default fails
What do you mean with testing for concormance?
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.
