Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 22:58:08 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to enable BSD defined names / functions Message-ID: <YZqy4A4CYYwOcmb1@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfoLO6=A%2B1nm-eQvJCX4age2r0VU7CeiCL99mg6YvReEsQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfoLO6=A%2B1nm-eQvJCX4age2r0VU7CeiCL99mg6YvReEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 01:51:00PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > There's rather a lot of software that defines _POSIX_C_SOURCE to some value > (usually 200809L for POSIX-1.2008), but also wants to use other things. > > One can generally work around this issue by defining __BSD_VISIBLE=1, but > most other systems have something more specific. NetBSD has _NETBSD_SOURCE. > OpenBSD has _OPENBSD_SOURCE as well. There's also some expectation that > _BSD_SOURCE can be defined, but none of the currently active BSDs has that. > > It appears from casual inspection that _NETBSD_SOURCE=1 means approximately > the same as __BSD_VISIBLE=1 in FreeBSD. > > Would it make sense to add a _FREEBSD_SOURCE=1 case and have it include > __BSD_VISIBLE=1 regardless of what other macros (especially > _POSIX_C_SOURCE) are defined to be a more regimented and defined way to > expand the namespace when multiple namespaces are defined? Please note that _BSD_VISIBLE works by presence, and not by value. Same as things like _GNU_SOURCE. Yes, it makes sense to have _FREEBSD_SOURCE symbol that would imply total visibility and override any _POSIX_C_SOURCE.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YZqy4A4CYYwOcmb1>