This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Possible bug in egcs-1.1b?
- To: Mumit Khan <khan at xraylith dot wisc dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Possible bug in egcs-1.1b?
- From: Alex Buell <alex dot buell at tahallah dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:09:34 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: Linux Egcs <egcs at cygnus dot com>
- Reply-To: alex dot buell at tahallah dot demon dot co dot uk
On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Mumit Khan wrote:
> Works fine on a RedHat 5.0 machine with glibc-devel-2.0.7-7. It would be
> much more useful if you would present pre-processed source file (see
> the -save-temps option) so that others will not have to depend on
> guesswork regarding the various glibc version specific headers.
There was a significant change in 2.0.96(not sure if it existed in prior
versions) that means that you have to define _GNU_SOURCE yourself so that
the getopt.h include file will define the struct option for getopt_long().
I'm sure that older getopts.h (I have the relevant includes from 2.0.4)
includes does not have an #ifdef _GNU_SOURCE around the option struct
definition.
I'm not sure if this is correct behaviour for glibc-2.0.96 though. I'll
have a word with Drepper.
Cheers,
Alex
--
/\_/\ Legalise cannabis now!
( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today!
> ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - rewritten for text browser users!
Linux tahallah 2.1.122 #43 Sat Sep 19 10:54:36 EDT 1998 libc 2.0.96 One AMD 486 DX/4 processor, 49.77 total bogomips, 32M RAM