[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4479] OS X 10.8 (x86_64): Compile errors when using "no-asm -ansi"

[Jeremy Farrell]

On 25/03/2016 17:01, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Richard Levitte via RT <rt at openssl.org> wrote:
>> Vid Fre, 25 Mar 2016 kl. 16.31.14, skrev noloader at gmail.com:
>>> To configure:
>>>
>>> ./config shared no-asm -ansi -D_DEFAULT_SOURCE=__STRICT_ANSI__
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if Configure should set _DEFAULT_SOURCE=__STRICT_ANSI__
>>> automatically.
>> Why do you give it the value __STRICT_ANSI__? All documentation I find suggests
>> it's enough to simply define it. See man page feature_test_macros(7) on Linux
>> (at least)
>>
>> The alternative is, of course, to define _DEFAULT_SOURCE in the files where
>> -ansi becomes a problem.
> That was based on examining /usr/include/features.h and the comment
> for _DEFAULT_SOURCE:
>
>      _DEFAULT_SOURCE The default set of features (taking precedence
> over __STRICT_ANSI__).
>
> How do you convey features by just defining it? It seems like it needs
> an argument, like _DEFAULT_SOURCE=__STRICT_ANSI__ or
> _DEFAULT_SOURCE=_POSIX_SOURCE.
>
> But its definitely not my area of expertise. I've never had to define to before.
>
> Jeff

It's the fact of its being defined which indicates features - it's 
tested in the GNU headers to decide what functionality to make visible. 
The norm is just to define it, or to define it to 1; setting it to 
__STRICT_ANSI__ would be a very confusing thing to do since the whole 
point of defining it is to say that you don't want __STRICT_ANSI__.

Why do you want to be able to build on an OS released in 2012 with a 
C89-only compiler? I'm probably missing something, but I'm struggling to 
understand the point of this.

-- 
J. J. Farrell
Not speaking for Oracle.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-dev/attachments/20160325/cf1a9f7f/attachment.html>