Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 06:39:58 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it Subject: Re: A couple of points about ports Message-ID: <199502251939.GAA27825@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>A lot of ports under 2.X suffer from a different definition of "sys_errlist" >Most of the times the patches symply remove the offending line in the >source. Is there any better way ? In stdio.h, there are a couple of The correct way is to remove all declarations and explicit use of sys_errlist and sys_nerr and use strerror(). This is a worse way if you want a quick and dirty port. >macros, ANSI_SOURCE and POSIX_SOURCE if I remember well, which might >solve the problem. Which one is better for this purpose ? _POSIX_SOURCE is better because ANSI features are a subset of POSIX features and most programs require POSIX features and BSD extensions. Using either is bogus because incorrectly declaring features and extensions doesn't change them. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502251939.GAA27825>