Subject: Re: Solaris like __EXTENSIONS__ ?
To: Marc Recht <email@example.com>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2003 11:55:15
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Marc Recht wrote:
> > Yeah, that's probably be best approach. It does mean that you can't be
> > certain of an application that uses _NETBSD_SOURCE continuing to compile
> > correctly on new versions of the system, though.
> Thats the price you'll have to pay for change / enhancements ;-)
> > A strict POSIX application will define _POSIX_C_SOURCE, and won't define
> > _NETBSD_SOURCE (since that's in the implementation's namespace). Because
> > _POSIX_C_SOURCE is defined, <sys/featuretest.h> wouldn't define
> > _NETBSD_SOURCE.
> > For avoidance of doubt, here's what I'd propose putting into
> > <sys/featuretest.h>, after the current check for _POSIX_SOURCE:
> Sounds nice. I'll have some cycles left next week. So if nobody else is
> already working on this, then I could provide a patch.
I'm already working on it. I've got most of a patch worked out, and will
post a URL for it here when it's ready for review (probably later today).
In the meantime, if anyone feels like telling me the precise intended
semantics of _ISO_C99_SOURCE, _LARGEFILE_SOURCE or _REENTRANT, I'd like to
hear them. I think I now know what's going on, but confirmation would
Ben Harris <email@example.com>
Portmaster, NetBSD/acorn26 <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/acorn26/>