This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Define _POSIX_SOURCE in cygwin's features.h?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:40:35PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Someone on the cygwin irc channel had a problem building a package
>>which would have been solved if Cygwin defined _POSIX_SOURCE.
>>I know that Cygwin is not fully POSIX compliant (I really really do)
>>but I'm wondering if setting _POSIX_SOURCE in the cygwin headers
>>wouldn't solve more porting problems than it creates.
>>Any opinions on this? Eric?
>>P.S. I know that Cygwin isn't fully compliant with POSIX
>As far as I can tell by googling, _POSIX_SOURCE, despite the leading
>underscore, is in fact a user-land feature test macro that it is up to
>each individual application to decide whether to switch it on or not
>according to whether the application itself is compliant or not.
No need to use google. Just grep for it in /usr/include on linux.
_POSIX_SOURCE is defined in features.h on linux under control of the
/* If _GNU_SOURCE was defined by the user, turn on all the other features. */
# undef _ISOC99_SOURCE
# define _ISOC99_SOURCE 1
# undef _POSIX_SOURCE
# define _POSIX_SOURCE 1
# undef _POSIX_C_SOURCE
# define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 199506L
# undef _XOPEN_SOURCE
# define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
# undef _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED
# define _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED 1
# undef _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
# define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE 1
# undef _BSD_SOURCE
# define _BSD_SOURCE 1
# undef _SVID_SOURCE
# define _SVID_SOURCE 1
So, let me clarify. Should we define _POSIX_SOURCE similarly to the way
that linux does it? This may mean that we have to define _GNU_SOURCE
also and maybe that's not a good idea but, again, it might solve more
problems than it causes.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html