This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Define _POSIX_SOURCE in cygwin's features.h?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:22:11PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:08:32PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>But a portable program should _not_ assume that #defining _GNU_SOURCE
>>>implies that _POSIX_SOURCE. If a program not only needs posix stuff
>>>but also some GNU extras, it should #define _GNU_SOURCE _and_
>>>_POSIX_SOURCE itself.
>>
>>I don't care about portable programs. I'm interested in hearing if
>>this will fix problems with programs which build without problem on
>>linux.
>
>But it seems that it only builds "without problem" on Linux by chance,
>not by design.
That is by no means clear but even if that was the case, I don't care.
>I don't see why we should try and fix this in cygwin.
>
>Consider how many times people come here and say "My app works fine on
>Linux, how come it just dies with a SEGV on cygwin" and someone points
>out the trivially obvious buffer overrun and we have to explain how it
>only ever worked on Linux by luck because of differences in the
>environment and the way the stack is set up.
If I could easily make cygwin behave exactly the same way so that a
buffer overrun that worked on linux went undetected on cygwin, too, I'd
do that? If there was some linker option to ensure that, I'd use it.
The point of cygwin isn't that it is a place where you find bugs which
you should have fixed on linux. Every place where there is a barrier
to porting a program from linux to cygwin is YA opportunity for someone
to give up in disgust or (maybe worse) send a "I get compile error" message
here.
But, I understand your opinion on the matter.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/