Re: gcc 4.6.1, solaris and c99

[Hans Rosenfeld <rosenfeld%grumpf.hope-2000.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:48:24PM +0200, Filip Hajny wrote:
> On 12. 10. 2011, at 14:10, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
> 
> > I guess this came from here:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01308.html
> > 
> > My first reaction was that gcc shouldn't do that, but I'm not so sure
> > anymore. It would also make sense to require the code to not just
> > re-define _XOPEN_SOURCE.
> > 
> > Did you already decide on what to do about it?
> 
> I didn't tackle it yet, but I guess _XOPEN_SOURCE definitions in the
> software should be patched away - for C++ code. My question I guess is
> if this is safe to do across the platforms, or should be only done on
> SunOS?

I wouldn't patch them away, but put a check for the value of
_XOPEN_SOURCE around it.

> I decided to build 2011Q3 with GCC 4.5.2 for now, to isolate all the
> breakage introduced in this branch (on our SmartOS platform), then
> revisit GCC 4.6.x again.

There are a lot of SunOS-relevant changes in lang/gcc44 that I'm about
to add to lang/gcc45 and lang/gcc46.


Hans


-- 
%SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown