From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6145 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: why is there no __MUSL__ macro? Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:38:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20140911123800.GI21835@port70.net> References: <541180B9.5070604@posteo.de> <541182D3.5010104@skarnet.org> <20140911111721.GG21835@port70.net> <54118F73.2020807@posteo.de> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410439105 17860 80.91.229.3 (11 Sep 2014 12:38:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:38:25 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6158-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Sep 11 14:38:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XS3de-0008Kg-R4 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:38:14 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5534 invoked by uid 550); 11 Sep 2014 12:38:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 5526 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2014 12:38:12 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54118F73.2020807@posteo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6145 Archived-At: * J?rg Krause [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