[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: unistd.h first?
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: unistd.h first? |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:43:11 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:
> I was under the impression that <unistd.h> should be included before
> just about any other system header, because it's <unistd.h> that defines
> _POSIX_VERSION, which can affect just about anything.
But _POSIX_VERSION isn't supposed to affect anything: it's supposed to
be imported from the system headers to user code.
Perhaps you're thinking of _POSIX_C_SOURCE (formerly _POSIX_SOURCE)?
That feature-test macro is exported from user code into system
headers; it's the sort of thing that might need to be defined first on
weird platforms. I've never need of _POSIX_C_SOURCE being needed, and
the only time I know that _POSIX_SOURCE was needed was on Minix.
- unistd.h first?, Karl Berry, 2004/03/25
- Re: unistd.h first?,
Paul Eggert <=