Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:50:43 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: _BSD_SOURCE vs. __BSD_VISIBLE Message-ID: <200403210350.i2L3ohKf044840@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200403182331.i2INVSIb005180@arch20m.dellroad.org> References: <200403182307.i2IN7403029016@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200403182331.i2INVSIb005180@arch20m.dellroad.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:31:28 -0600 (CST), Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> said:
> I want everything.. on Linux I need at least _GNU_SOURCE to get it,
> otherwise my compilation fails due to undeclared stuff. Why did Linux
> choose to arrange things so that the "default" is to not show everything?
> Don't just say they made a "bad decision".. they must have had some
> rationale, even if flawed.
Perhaps you should ask a Linux developer that question. I can hardly
speak for them.
By my reading of the standard, if the application defines
_POSIX_C_SOURCE to a recognized value, then any system header files
included *must not* declare any symbols outside the namespaces
reserved in the Standard for those header files. (If the application
defines _POSIX_C_SOURCE and then includes a non-Standard system header
file, all bets are off, and in many cases compilation will and ought
to break.)
If an application defines a macro in the implementation name space,
then the compiler is free to compile the module as an implementation
of `system("rogue");'.
-GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403210350.i2L3ohKf044840>