< said:
> may != MUST. We do not pollute the name space. Providing additional
> facilities pollutes the name space, breaking strictly conforming
> programs.
Not necessarily. The Standard reserves certain namespaces for the
implementation's use. However, none of the examples people are
complai
may != MUST. We do not pollute the name space. Providing additional
facilities pollutes the name space, breaking strictly conforming
programs.
Hmm, I can't see why a __EXTENSIONS__ (like Solaris has) would break posix
confirming programms. But, it would help for eg. autoconf third-party apps
w
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marc Recht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > A conforming application cannot make use of facilities outside the
: > scope of the standard. This means that if you define
: > _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L you don't want RPC.
: I don't said that the application is
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marc Recht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Why are you specifying a standard and then using features outside its
: > scope? Either you want a BSD environment (in which case don't specify
: The standard is specified to get the standard functions. Eg. if i
A conforming application cannot make use of facilities outside the
scope of the standard. This means that if you define
_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L you don't want RPC.
I don't said that the application is _strictly_ POSIX conforming. It only
wants to use POSIX functions and RPC.
FreeBSD's way seems
Marc Recht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The standard is specified to get the standard functions. Eg. if i specify
> _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L then I want (for example) POSIX's flockfile, if the
> OS supports POSIX. This doesn't mean that I don't want rpc. This means that
> I need to change third
Why are you specifying a standard and then using features outside its
scope? Either you want a BSD environment (in which case don't specify
The standard is specified to get the standard functions. Eg. if i specify
_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L then I want (for example) POSIX's flockfile, if the
OS su
[CC'd port's maintainer.]
Vasyl S. Smirnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:17:15PM +0100, Marc Recht wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > While compiling some third-party code I got this:
> > gcc -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_=600
> > -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1 test.c
> >
Marc Recht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> While compiling some third-party code I got this:
> gcc -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_=600
> -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1 test.c
> In file included from test.c:2:
> /usr/include/sys/file.h:130: syntax error before "u_int"
>
> This makes
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:17:15PM +0100, Marc Recht wrote:
> Hi!
>
> While compiling some third-party code I got this:
> gcc -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_=600
> -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED=1 test.c
> In file included from test.c:2:
> /usr/include/sys/file.h:130: syntax error before "u_
10 matches
Mail list logo