This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] GCC Ada/GNAT configuration for GNU/Hurd
- From: Thomas Quinot <quinot at adacore dot com>
- To: Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, svante dot signell at telia dot com, bosch at gnat dot com, dewar at gnat dot com, charlet at act-europe dot fr, ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:08:55 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] GCC Ada/GNAT configuration for GNU/Hurd
- References: <1339857758-5032-1-git-send-email-thomas@codesourcery.com> <20120618102347.GA7978@adacore.com> <87zk80dhme.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120618104651.GB10382@adacore.com>
* Arnaud Charlet, 2012-06-18 :
> > > > -#if defined (__linux__) && !defined (_XOPEN_SOURCE)
> > > > +#if (defined (__linux__) || defined (__GNU__)) && !defined
> > > > (_XOPEN_SOURCE)
> > > > /** For Linux _XOPEN_SOURCE must be defined, otherwise IOV_MAX is not
> > > > defined
> > > > **/
> > > > #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500
> > >
> > > You need to update the comment here, since the section so far only
> > > applied to GNU/Linux and not GNU/Hurd.
> >
> > In fact, should that perhaps (unverified) simply say »For glibc,
> > _XOPEN_SOURCE must be defined [...]« -- or is this code meant to be
> > usable on GNU/Linux with a C library different from glibc?
>
> Posibly yes. Thomas (Quinot), any comment on the above?
No strong opinion either way. What is important is that the comment be
consistent with what we actually test. If we want the comment to say
"For glibc, blah..." then we need to change the test to something that
actually tests for glibc.
Thomas.
--
Thomas Quinot, Ph.D. ** quinot@adacore.com ** Senior Software Engineer
AdaCore -- Paris, France -- New York, USA