[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro
From: |
felix . winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:24:34 +0100 |
> I really hate playing this stupid game of whack-a-mole with header
> definitions (there seems to be no sane combination of definitions that
> will work on all OSes). Instead, I think it's better to just give in
> and add the --std=gnu99 on all platforms where we're using gcc and clang.
> I'd appreciate if you guys could test this on a x86_64 Windows to see
> if that also fixes the warnings you saw before.
I agree that any attempt to find the right combination of macros
will be an endless trial-and-error. I think that won't lead aynwhere.
I usually use -std=gnu99 for most C code I compile nowadays.
felix
- [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 1/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, (continued)
- [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 1/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Evan Hanson, 2017/01/12
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Kooda, 2017/01/14
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Peter Bex, 2017/01/14
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Evan Hanson, 2017/01/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Peter Bex, 2017/01/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Evan Hanson, 2017/01/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Peter Bex, 2017/01/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro, Evan Hanson, 2017/01/18
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH 0/1] Add _XOPEN_SOURCE feature test macro,
felix . winkelmann <=