On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Evan Martin<e...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Ben Laurie<b...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Evan Martin<e...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Laurie<b...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> I'd be happy to do that. When I do, there's something that's already
>>>> puzzling me, and that's OS_POSIX.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a copy of the POSIX standard, at least not a recent one,
>>>> so its hard to know what is or isn't POSIX, and I imagine I am not
>>>> alone in that. However, various comments lead me to believe that
>>>> OS_POSIX doesn't really mean "POSIX" in people's minds - it really
>>>> means "UNIXish" or "not Windows" or something.
>>>>
>>>> How would I document this define? Is there an agreed meaning?
>>>
>>> I think it should just be POSIX. The places that Linux and the BSDs
>>> will disagree are exactly the bits that aren't POSIX. You don't need
>>> a POSIX spec for this; libc man pages have a "CONFORMING TO" section.
>>
>> I'm glad there's clear consensus on this issue :-)
>>
>> So am I right in thinking that your view is that if its in FreeBSD and
>> Linux it will be POSIX, almost always? And so there is no need for a
>> UNIXISH macro?
>
> I think this problem is dangerously too easy for people to comment on,
> and that you should use your good judgement and see if a reviewer
> disagrees with you. I mostly agree with the original objection to
> tests like "if linux or freebsd". :)
In that case, I will follow brettw's suggestion and come back when I
have a larger corpus of evidence.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
