From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 11 4: 2: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CD037B401; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 04:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750F143EB1; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 04:01:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA26228; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:01:48 +1000 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:12:00 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Craig Rodrigues Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG, Subject: Re: Problem detecting POSIX symbolic constants In-Reply-To: <20021010105531.A12354@attbi.com> Message-ID: <20021011210139.H12589-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:31:56PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > Perhaps because they wanted you to use sysconf() instead of these mistakes. > > Well in the case of ACE, it is a C++ library that is compiled on > platforms which may or may not have sysconf() (ie. Windows), so using sysconf() is > not practical in this case. Checking a feature macro is much easier. How can new POSIX interfaces and new POSIX feature test macros work on systems that don't have ancient POSIX interfaces like sysconf(). As may have been clarified in other meesages in this thread, you need a new version of POSIX even to interpret _POSIX_REALTIME_SIGNALS. It is in POSIX.1-1996 and perhaps in earlier versions of POSIX (not including at least the 1990 one), so it is meaningless unless _POSIX_VERSION > 199mumble. > > I used a variant your patch for this in PR 35924 until recently when > > ... > This patch works for me. I think it is just as easy to just remove cruft from > the header file entirely, but since your patch effectively does the same > thing and has informative comments, that is fine. I slightly prefer to ifdef them, since an implementation is planned. > If your patch (or some equivalent variant) is committed, then I think > PR 35924 can be closed. Something needs to be done about these prototypes. OK, I will clean up the patch and commit it. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message