Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:22:00 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: POSIX_C_SOURCE Message-ID: <20030830182200.GA62326@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200308301730.h7UHU1tn064002@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20030830161813.GA28890@twisted.net> <200308301649.h7UGnF5H042361@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20030830171343.GA33800@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <200308301730.h7UHU1tn064002@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 10:30:01AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > This is precisely what I did a few days ago in DragonFly. The warnings > were getting annoying. Only a few days ago? You must be harder to annoy than I am. :-) I have been using that patch since January, which is when the warnings got too annoying for me. (In case somebody wonders: No, I have not had any problems whatsoever with that patch during the seven months I have used it, nor do I expect any problems with it in the future. The only effect the patch has is to get rid of lots of annoying and (in this case) useless warnings. Personally I can't think of any good reason to *not* apply that patch to RELENG_4 as soon as possible, but since I don't have a commit bit that decision is not mine to make.) > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> > > : > :On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:49:15PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > :> In article <20030830161813.GA28890@twisted.net> you write: > :> > :> >Any chance that someone will finally commit the fixes to prevent the > :> >POSIX_C_SOURCE warnings from showing up? I saw a number of posts on this > :> >topic, but it still seems like it's not "officially committed" > :> > :> >/usr/include/sys/cdefs.h:273: warning: `_POSIX_C_SOURCE' is not defined > :> >/usr/include/sys/cdefs.h:279: warning: `_POSIX_C_SOURCE' is not defined > :> > :> The warnings are wrong,[1] so you should probably ask the GCC people > :> about that. > : > :The warnings are not wrong (see below), but anyway, since -stable uses > :the "ancient" GCC 2.95.4, the GCC people are not likely to > :give a damn in either case. They usually don't care about the older > :releases. > : > :> > :> -GAWollman > :> > :> [1] That is to say, any identifier used in a preprocessor expression > :> (after macro expansion) is defined to have a value of zero, and GCC > :> should not be complaining about this. > : > :The code is correct, which is why GCC only gives a warning and not an > :error. Code looking like that are usually an indication of a > :programmer error though, so GCC is perfectly right in warning about > :it. This is similar to the compiler warning about unused variables, > :which isn't a bug either but often indicates a programmer mistake. > : > :To make gcc shut up, you can apply the following patch to cdefs.h > :which makes the warnings go away, without changing the semantics of the > :include file in any way. > : > : > :Index: cdefs.h > :=================================================================== > :RCS file: /ncvs/src/sys/sys/cdefs.h,v > :retrieving revision 1.28.2.8 > :diff -u -r1.28.2.8 cdefs.h > :--- cdefs.h 18 Sep 2002 04:05:13 -0000 1.28.2.8 > :+++ cdefs.h 29 Jan 2003 21:23:30 -0000 > :@@ -269,6 +269,8 @@ > : * Our macros begin with two underscores to avoid namespace screwage. > : */ > : > :+#ifdef _POSIX_C_SOURCE > :+ > : /* Deal with IEEE Std. 1003.1-1990, in which _POSIX_C_SOURCE == 1. */ > : #if _POSIX_C_SOURCE == 1 > : #undef _POSIX_C_SOURCE /* Probably illegal, but beyond caring now. */ > :@@ -280,6 +282,8 @@ > : #undef _POSIX_C_SOURCE > : #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 199209 > : #endif > :+ > :+#endif /* _POSIX_C_SOURCE */ > : > : /* Deal with various X/Open Portability Guides and Single UNIX Spec. */ > : #ifdef _XOPEN_SOURCE > : > : -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030830182200.GA62326>