Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:22:52AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > >>>From: Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>>On Linux, it might be more standards-friendly to do >>>#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600 >>>instead of _GNU_SOURCE. If we're trying to provide an illusion of >>>uniform behavior, we should avoid enabling GNU extensions, no? > >>First, a common case in Autoconf is to use all available extensions. > > bad idea (but the notion that the developer should be choosing features > seems to have been discarded) > >>Second, we already tried defining _XOPEN_SOURCE a while ago, and it >>didn't work well, precisely because it disabled desirable extensions: > > that's certainly an understatement (the ifdef's in glibc probably have been > reasonably well-tested only for the combination that corresponds to > _GNU_SOURCE - after seeing a number of obvious errors, I decided that it > must be intentional).
Really? Do you have a test case? Maybe I can add a regression test to glibc for it. Here, I use #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500 to get access to pread() without any trouble. - Dan
