On Apr 23, 2011, at 9:28 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 03:46, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Looks like we need a patch to deal with the "illegal" placement of
>> XOPEN_SOURCE and BSD_SOURCE in the source code so this issue doesn't keep
>> coming up.
>
>
> What exactly is the error?
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:22,
from /home/rgill/PETSc/petsc-3.1-p8/include/petscsys.h:147,
from options.c:14:
/usr/include/sys/feature_tests.h:336:2: error: #error "Compiler or options
invalid; UNIX 03 and POSIX.1-2001 applications require the use of c99"
> Note that we already changed _XOPEN_SOURCE to
> _POSIX_C_SOURCE (in dev) because Open Solaris did not like the former.
It could be that this fix just needs to be backported to petsc 3.1
Barry
> One
> possible fix could be the ugly
>
> #ifndef _BSD_SOURCE
> # define _BSD_SOURCE
> #endif
>
>
> I really do not want to put feature test macros in public headers (our usual
> model with finding which header declares certain functions) because they
> change which symbols are available in headers and introduce order
> dependence. That is, a user writing
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <petsc.h>
>
> would not bring in atoll(), but including petsc.h first would have it (and
> lots of other symbols). I don't think a library should ever change the
> language "dialect" that a user writes their code in.
>
>
> I don't really understand why Solaris is having a problem with our defining
> feature test macros. As far as I know, we are using them as recommended.
> Searching for solaris feature test macros brings up results like the
> following man page that explains how to set them.
>
> http://www.cims.nyu.edu/cgi-systems/man.cgi?section=5&topic=standards
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 03:46, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Looks like we need a patch to deal with the "illegal" placement of
> XOPEN_SOURCE and BSD_SOURCE in the source code so this issue doesn't keep
> coming up.
>
> What exactly is the error? Note that we already changed _XOPEN_SOURCE to
> _POSIX_C_SOURCE (in dev) because Open Solaris did not like the former. One
> possible fix could be the ugly
>
> #ifndef _BSD_SOURCE
> # define _BSD_SOURCE
> #endif
>
>
> I really do not want to put feature test macros in public headers (our usual
> model with finding which header declares certain functions) because they
> change which symbols are available in headers and introduce order dependence.
> That is, a user writing
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <petsc.h>
>
> would not bring in atoll(), but including petsc.h first would have it (and
> lots of other symbols). I don't think a library should ever change the
> language "dialect" that a user writes their code in.
>
>
> I don't really understand why Solaris is having a problem with our defining
> feature test macros. As far as I know, we are using them as recommended.
> Searching for solaris feature test macros brings up results like the
> following man page that explains how to set them.
>
> http://www.cims.nyu.edu/cgi-systems/man.cgi?section=5&topic=standards
