http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-08 14:32:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) > It seems like there is only two possible patches here using the existing > infrastructure in acinclude.m4 that would allow darwin's nanosleep() to be > found when passing --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes. Either... > > Index: acinclude.m4 > =================================================================== > --- acinclude.m4 (revision 192206) > +++ acinclude.m4 (working copy) > @@ -1249,7 +1249,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_ENABLE_LIBSTDCXX_TIME] > [#include <unistd.h> > #include <time.h> > ], > - [#if _POSIX_TIMERS > 0 > + [#if _POSIX_TIMERS != 0 This is just wrong. See http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/unistd.h.html#tag_13_80_03_02 for the meaning of the values. _POSIX_TIMERS=200112L would mean darwin provides a pre-2008 nanosleep, -1 means the Timers option is not supported. > Or are you going to demand that the use of pre-2008 POSIX nanosleep() be only > accepted on a target-specific basis? There are plenty of systems with a 2001 nanosleep that define _POSIX_TIMERS to 20112L, but darwin seems to support nanosleep without the rest of the Timers option. I don't want to remove the correct check for _POSIX_TIMERS just for one system's peculiarities.
