[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Minix support, part 1
From: |
Thomas Cort |
Subject: |
Re: Minix support, part 1 |
Date: |
Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:38:21 -0400 |
> When working on a libc like that, be sure to periodically test it against
> the gnulib testsuite. Gnulib's testsuite checks against many (simple or
> complicated) bugs in POSIX functions.
Thanks for the tip! I didn't know it had such a test suite. I'll let
the developers working on the C library know about it.
Also, thanks for reporting that some of the headers are not
self-contained. I'll forward those reports on as well.
> Will sizeof(long double) be increased, or will it stay the same as
> sizeof(double)?
I tested it with the latest development code and they are still the
same size. I don't think there are plans to change the size anytime
soon, but I'll forward it on.
>> Also note, to get the
>> right functions and definitions included, you should have CPPFLAGS set
>> to "-D_NETBSD_SOURCE -D_MINIX -D_POSIX_SOURCE -D_COMPAT_MINIX" and
>> LDADD set to "-lcompat_minix -lminlib"
>
> Please revisit these choices. Autoconfiguring packages only set _MINIX
> and _POSIX_SOURCE, because that's in Autoconf for many years. Any change
> here takes ca. 5 years until it has been rolled out to users and people
> have created new packages with these new Autoconf versions.
I'll bring that up with the Minix developers.
Thanks again for all of the help,
-Thomas
Minix support, part 2, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/31
Minix support, part 3, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/31
Minix support, part 4, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/31
Minix support, part 5, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/31
Minix support, part 6, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/31
Minix support, part 7, Bruno Haible, 2011/07/31