[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c65a467e-5672-ada5-052d-e10a70f44eb1@gmail.com>
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 yes I know SUSv2 is obsolete, but then why does musl even bother to define _SC_XBS5_ILP32_OFF32 then?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.
