On 20 December 2013 13:16, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 November 2013 18:56, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13 November 2013 09:22, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>> On 11 November 2013 12:30, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> How does __UCLIBC_SUSV4_LEGACY__ get defined? We'd have a problem if >>>> users defined that at configure time but not later when using the >>>> library. >>> That would be defined by uClibc's configury, but the latest >>> "commit-6f2faa2" i attached does not mention this anymore, but does >>> the check in a libc-agnostic manner? >> >> Yes, but I was concerned about whether the value of that macro can >> change between configuring libstdc++ and users compiling code using >> libstdc++. If it could change (e.g. by users compiling with >> -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L or some other feature test macro) then the >> value of _GLIBCXX_USE_TMPNAM (which doesn't change) would be >> unreliable and we could end up with a "using ::tmpnam" in the library >> that causes errors when users compile. >> >> If it's set when configuring uClibc then it is a constant for a given >> libstdc++ installation, so the value of _GLIBCXX_USE_TMPNAM is >> reliable. In that case your change is OK to commit (with or without >> the "XYZ" change) - thanks. > > It is a constant, yes. I will push this after another round of regtests > against current trunk as time permits.
Just rebased and saw that sje committed this as svn r207009 for me since i apparently forgot.. Thanks!
