X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: Define _POSIX_SOURCE in cygwin's features.h? Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:06:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20060112185350.GG30108@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Message-ID: Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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. > I understand yours too, and it's equally valid. I'm curious why someone's application would want to test _POSIX_SOURCE - it should be the app that sets it or not and it should just know. But if they've handed the responsibility to auto* to determine when to use it, and auto* decides YES for Linux, then I agree it should certainly DTST on Cygwin. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/