[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161230225404.GU1555@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:54:04 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: SUSv2 c89 compilation environment symbols missing
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 yes I know SUSv2 is obsolete, but then why does musl even bother to define _SC_XBS5_ILP32_OFF32 then?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.
