Just commenting on this: Rob Landley wrote: > As for the lib/portability.h patch: FreeBSD doesn't have features.h, but > Linux and MacOS X agree on that one? Odd. Speaking of which, we have > __FreeBSD__ without #including features.h?
The compiler might define it similarly to how it defines __linux__. > As for this bit: > > -#if !defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__BIONIC__) > +#if !defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__BIONIC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD__) > > If we didn't include features.h, we shouldn't have __GLIBC__ or > __BIONIC__ #defined because that's the header that defines them. I'd > also assume that if we're building on freebsd, we don't have those > #defined either because it's got its own libc? So why add a __FreeBSD__ > guard symbol here? For glibc it seems to me, that almost any header will include <features.h>. So including <sys/types.h> is presumably enough to get the definition of _GLIBC_. It might also work for the other systems targetted by portability.h. Felix PS: Just to mention, there is also something called kfreebsd [1], which will define both _GLIBC_ and __FreeBSD__ (but not __linux__). [1]: http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
