On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:53:50PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:22:11PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: >>Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:08:32PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>>>But a portable program should _not_ assume that #defining _GNU_SOURCE >>>>implies that _POSIX_SOURCE. If a program not only needs posix stuff >>>>but also some GNU extras, it should #define _GNU_SOURCE _and_ >>>>_POSIX_SOURCE itself. >>> >>>I don't care about portable programs. I'm interested in hearing if >>>this will fix problems with programs which build without problem on >>>linux. >> >>But it seems that it only builds "without problem" on Linux by chance, >>not by design. > >That is by no means clear but even if that was the case, I don't care. > >>I don't see why we should try and fix this in cygwin. >> >>Consider how many times people come here and say "My app works fine on >>Linux, how come it just dies with a SEGV on cygwin" and someone points >>out the trivially obvious buffer overrun and we have to explain how it >>only ever worked on Linux by luck because of differences in the >>environment and the way the stack is set up. > >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.
Editing glitch above. Please change '?' to '.'. cgf -- 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/
