Hi, Christopher Faylor, le Thu 12 Jan 2006 12:59:08 -0500, a écrit : > >>Someone on the cygwin irc channel had a problem building a package > >>which would have been solved if Cygwin defined _POSIX_SOURCE.
If the package doesn't define _POSIX_SOURCE itself then it needs be fixed, not cygwin. > _POSIX_SOURCE is defined in features.h on linux under control of the > _GNU_SOURCE macro. Indeed. > /* If _GNU_SOURCE was defined by the user, turn on all the other features. > */ > #ifdef _GNU_SOURCE ... > # define _POSIX_SOURCE 1 ... > #endif > > So, let me clarify. Should we define _POSIX_SOURCE similarly to the way > that linux does it? This may mean that we have to define _GNU_SOURCE > also and maybe that's not a good idea but, again, it might solve more > problems than it causes. No. It can create a lot of other problems. Maybe cygwin could #define _POSIX_SOURCE to 1 if the user _already_ defined _GNU_SOURCE. But a portable program should _not_ assume that #defining _GNU_SOURCE implies that _POSIX_SOURCE. If a program not only needs posix stuff but also some GNU extras, it should #define _GNU_SOURCE _and_ _POSIX_SOURCE itself. Regards, Samuel -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/