David Chisnall wrote: > On 2 Nov 2012, at 09:05, Wolfgang Lux wrote: > >> Do we need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE at all? In the headers on OS X I found >> this comment: >> Defining _POSIX_C_SOURCE or _XOPEN_SOURCE restricts the >> available APIs to exactly the set of APIs defined by the >> corresponding standard, based on the value defined. >> I guess (at least) other BSD based systems handle this macro similarly (I'm >> too lazy to fire up a VM to check). > > Yes, BSD libc uses the macro in this way. Unfortunately, glibc uses it in > the opposite way, and *only* exposes standard functionality if these macros > are defined. *BSD libc defaults to exposing everything, glibc defaults to > exposing a very limited subset. This gets doubly irritating on glibc because > there are some pairs of functions that it is not possible to simultaneously > expose, because some are POSIX and some are from BSD and the feature macros > to expose one hide the other...
I'm not sure what libc Ubuntu aka Debian uses, but I gave it a quick try and added this to common.h (below the definition of _XOPEN_SOURCE) #ifdef _XOPEN_SOURCE # undef _XOPEN_SOURCE #endif and, guess what, gnustep-base still compiles fine. So my question still stands: Do we really need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE? Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
