Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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.
>
> The point of cygwin isn't that it is a place where you find bugs which
> you should have fixed on linux. Every place where there is a barrier
> to porting a program from linux to cygwin is YA opportunity for someone
> to give up in disgust or (maybe worse) send a "I get compile error"
> message here.
>
> But, I understand your opinion on the matter.
>
I understand yours too, and it's equally valid. I'm curious why someone's
application would want to test _POSIX_SOURCE - it should be the app that sets
it or not and it should just know. But if they've handed the responsibility
to auto* to determine when to use it, and auto* decides YES for Linux, then I
agree it should certainly DTST on Cygwin.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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/
