Re: why is there no __MUSL__ macro?

[Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>]

* J?rg Krause <jkrause@posteo.de> [2014-09-11 14:02:59 +0200]:
> On 09/11/2014 01:17 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >then _testing_ for conformance issues is the second try
> >if the default fails
> 
> What do you mean with testing for concormance?

eg glibc scanf uses "%a" for its own extension by default
and c99 behaviour is only provided with appropriate cflags

if your project depends on %a scanf then you may need to
test for this conformance issue (instead of ifdef __GLIBC__
because they may change the behaviour later or the cflag
might not work on an older version etc)

of course there are cases when you depend on behaviour that
is not described by any standard in which case it is not
"conformance testing" but you still need some kind of testing
of the behaviour for portability