Re: AIX status

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 09:18:17PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> 	Phil, I would appreciate if you would not make snide remarks about
> AIX. 

It was only a joke, as evidenced by the smiley.  I apologize if it hurt
your feelings, and will refrain from doing so in the future.


> 	Ulrich, if I only set _XOPEN_SOURCE=500, then it appears
> _LARGE_FILE_API is not defined which omits the definition of off64_t and
> the 64-bit I/O calls.  Those are extensions.

Like I said, defining these things in os_defines may in fact be the only
way do some of these things.  Right now I have

    #define _XOPEN_SOURCE        500
    #define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE  1

in addition to the __foo_t things and some wrappers that Linux already
defines.

As Ulrich says, _XOPEN_SOURCE=500 is all that's required for standard
definitions.  A value of 500 implies all the behavior of _POSIX_SOURCE,
if I recall correctly, so you shouldn't need to do that yourself.  If XOPEN
isn't pulling in the POSIX, then that does strike me as brokenness in the
headers...

For extensions like large files, well, yeah, /some/ kind of platform-unique
stuff is going to need to be done, so _LARGE_FILE_API needs to be there.

I don't think I've heard of _ANSI_C_SOURCE, so I won't address that.
Sounds like that should be a subset of POSIX behavior?


> 	I am really disappointed by the unprofessional, disparagin tone
> that some people are taking.

Not disparaging, just lighthearted.  As much as we all very seriously
want this library to work and work well, it's only ones and zeros; and
after seeing the internals of the compiler and library, we need to make
the occasional joke to keep ourselves sane.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.