[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD)
From: |
David Chisnall |
Subject: |
Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD) |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:06:03 +0000 |
On 2 Nov 2012, at 09:00, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> Unfortunately, I read that we can't use _GLIBC_ because other libc
> implementations define that in order to pretend that they are glibc!
You also, unfortunately, can't use it at include time because it's defined in a
header and not by the compiler, so it isn't defined until after you include
something from glibc, and by this time glibc has defined a load of internal
macros based on the standards macros that you define. You'd need a configure
script that checked for glibc and defined something in common.h for glibc.
David
-- Sent from my IBM 1620
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), (continued)
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Wolfgang Lux, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Wolfgang Lux, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Wolfgang Lux, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Wolfgang Lux, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Philippe Roussel, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2012/11/03
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD), David Chisnall, 2012/11/02
- Re: On linux too (was Re: Base compilation broken on NetBSD),
David Chisnall <=