[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is IRIX 6.5 obsolete?

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: Is IRIX 6.5 obsolete?
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:45:41 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1

On 05/22/2012 06:36 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:

>> It may have worked by accident for now, but POSIX doesn't require it to
>> work, so we are better off using an explicit include that POSIX does
>> guarantee so that if future Interix ever fixes their headers for POSIX
>> compliance, we continue to compile.  I say we keep the added #include in
>> select.c.
> That is convincing and I agree, so I re-reverted the patch.  The same
> argument doesn't hold for strdup though: strdup is POSIX and it should
> be available if the user doesn't disable it.  So let's leave that patch
> reverted, I guess?

Correct.  Unless we are specifically catering to IRIX compilation with
_POSIX_SOURCE (and technically, _POSIX_SOURCE is what requests POSIX
1992; POSIX 2001 and POSIX 2008 suggest using _POSIX_C_SOURCE instead),
then we don't have to work around a missing strdup.  It's easy enough to
document that on IRIX, use of _POSIX_SOURCE is not supported by gnulib
(because it selects too old of a standard, and disables too many things
that were extensions to the older standard but now required).

Hmm, I wonder if the 'extensions' module should add a -U_POSIX_SOURCE to
CFLAGS on platforms where defining _POSIX_SOURCE is known to disable
useful extensions.

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]