On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Ben Laurie<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Evan Martin<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Laurie<[email protected]> 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". :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
