On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 08:03:40PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [snip] > > It's guarded by: > > #if defined __USE_BSD || defined __USE_XOPEN > > > > _POSIX_SOURCE is: > > _POSIX_SOURCE IEEE Std 1003.1. > > i.e. not 1b. > > Ahh, that explains it. > > > On the other hand, given: > > _POSIX_C_SOURCE If ==1, like _POSIX_SOURCE; if >=2 add IEEE Std > > 1003.2; > > if >=199309L, add IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993; > > if >=199506L, add IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995 > > > > but _POSIX_C_SOURCE=199309 is not enough to turn on the prototype of > > fsync... so there is a problem, but _POSIX_SOURCE is behaving as > > intended. > [snip] > > Wow, this is a messier tangle than I previously thought. :-) > > Is any of this documented anywhere? I think the original bug submitter > filed the bug because according to his understanding of the documentation, > fsync *should* be included when _POSIX_SOURCE is defined. The manpage > *does* mention POSIX.1b; so if what you describe above is actually > documented somewhere, then the submitter should be referred to it, and the > bug should be closed.
Documented? Well, sort of. There's practical documentation in the source; please read /usr/include/features.h near the top, which is _extensively_ commented. Aha, I see that there is a "Feature Test Macros" in the info documentation also. I'm not sure if the bug should be closed; it depends exactly where fsync belongs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer