| 1 |
On 6/14/16 5:54 AM, Lei Zhang wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2016-06-14 16:54 GMT+08:00 Eric Fiselier <eric@××××.ca>: |
| 3 |
>>> Does libc++ also rely on this macro to work on Linux? |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Yes. Adding -U_GNU_SOURCE during the libc++ build results in a litany of |
| 6 |
>> errors. |
| 7 |
>> The libc++ headers depend on a number of C library symbols that only get |
| 8 |
>> defined when -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 is present. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Is it feasible to use some finer-grain control like _ISOC99_SOURCE, |
| 11 |
> instead of resorting to the too versatile _GNU_SOURCE? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'd be willing to work out such a patch to libc++, if it makes sense. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Lei |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That is the better approach. The problem is that we tend to lump groups |
| 20 |
of functions under macros like _GNU_SOURCE or __UCLIBC__ only to run |
| 21 |
into problems later. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 26 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 27 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 28 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives