Re: [PATCH] Don't define _XOPEN_SOURCE on MacOSX and FreeBSD as it is too restricting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

* Marco Roeland [06-12-22 12:47:22 +0100] wrote:

In fact on FreeBSD the problem seems to be only that when _XOPEN_SOURCE
is defined, than the macro __BSD_VISIBLE is unset or 0. Adding just

#ifdef __FreeBSD__
#define __BSD_VISIBLE   1
#endif

The first patch I sent in did exactly that via -D__BSD_VISIBLE set in the Makefile and Junio correctly complained that the __-prefix is meant to be for internal use only. I bet he'll say the same about this flavour of defining __BSD_VISIBLE. :)

I was just too lazy to recursively go through the #define/#ifdef parts of header files to find why __BSD_VISIBLE is needed.

Second, in <sys/cdefs.h> _XOPEN_SOURCE indirectly influences __BSD_VISIBLE through _POSIX_C_SOURCE. The latter is defined for values of >=500 for _XOPEN_SOURCE so that even

  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 499

works fine on FreeBSD.

I'm still in favour of simply adding '!defined(__FreeBSD__)' to git-compat-util.h as soon as possible to push out a maintaince release that at least compiles (on FreeBSD)...

  bye, Rocco
--
:wq!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]