On 11/7/14, Ray Donnelly <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Ozkan Sezer <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11/7/14, Ruben Van Boxem <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 2014-11-07 9:25 GMT+01:00 Ozkan Sezer <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On 11/7/14, Dongsheng Song <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > If we define _POSIX_, then getpid (process.h) was hidden. >>>> > Is it correct ? >>>> > >>>> > PS: MSVC 2012 is the last compiler which use _POSIX_, MSVC 2013 do not >>>> > use _POSIX_ anymore. >>>> > MSVC 2012/2013 guard getpid with !__STDC__. >>>> >>>> I believe (but not necessarily correct about iıt) that MSVC's _POSIX >>>> symbol is intended for diffrerent purposes, i.e. windows posix >>>> subsystem, >>>> and I believe that we are doing a wrong thing with having those _POSIX >>>> ifdefs in our headers.. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. >>>> >>> >>> I have no idea, but be aware at least one reference in GCC showed up: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20034&action=edit >>> >>> But maybe that's there exactly because _POSIX is in the MinGW-w64 >>> headers... >> >> I remember that they defined _POSIX only because mingw-w64 headers >> required it for certain declarations > > Also, should we consider renaming _POSIX to _POSIX_SOURCE? >
What I am saying is that those two have different meanings. If we ever get rid of _POSIX we will possibly need to remove certain stuff too. Things that currently are guarded by _POSIX but should actually be guarded by _POSIX_SOURCE are there too and they are another part of the story. -- O.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
