Re: Interix identification.

[Thomas Dickey]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 02:43:00PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > that's certainly an understatement (the ifdef's in glibc probably have been
> > reasonably well-tested only for the combination that corresponds to
> > _GNU_SOURCE - after seeing a number of obvious errors, I decided that it
> > must be intentional).
> 
> Really?  Do you have a test case?  Maybe I can add a regression test to glibc
> for it.  Here, I use

not offhand - I spent a chunk of time attempting to get it to compile some
ANSI+POSIX stuff that works fine on other platforms w/o adding definitions,
and didn't succeed (so I added a _GNU_SOURCE test ;-).  Occasionally when
I'm grep'ing through the headers I come across stray functions that don't
appear to belong.  But I haven't gone through them systematically (judging
by what google tells me, no one has).

(Aside from ifdef's, it would be nice to have a set of system header-files that
don't generate lots of compiler-warnings for my normal set of gcc options - I
complained about that more than once, was told it was fixed, but only saw it
get worse ;-)
 
> #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500
> 
> to get access to pread() without any trouble.
> - Dan

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net