On 2022-09-21 02:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Well this is just user error. Unless I'm mistaken, _XOPEN_SOURCE=500
> selects a standard that doesn't even define struct in6_addr.
That is almost certainly correct; but the issue reproduces with 700,
which I tried first. Then I found the smallest val
On 2022-09-21 01:32, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> gcc -E - -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500
>
> Defining _XOPEN_SOURCE — or worse, _POSIX_SOURCE — on arbitrary platforms
> is a recipe for producing compilation errors.
>
> On HP-UX/hppa, -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 is useful.
> On HP-UX/ia64, -D_XOPEN_S
On Wed, 21 Sept 2022 at 04:19, Kaz Kylheku via cfarm-users
wrote:
>
> On 2022-09-20 14:29, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > This is on gcc119.fsffrance.org (AIX 7.2). About which AIX and GCC versions
> > were you complaining?
>
> I neglected to mention: there are two areas in the header file
> which defin
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> gcc -E - -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500
Defining _XOPEN_SOURCE — or worse, _POSIX_SOURCE — on arbitrary platforms
is a recipe for producing compilation errors.
On HP-UX/hppa, -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 is useful.
On HP-UX/ia64, -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 is useful, but only in combination with
-D_HPU
On 2022-09-20 14:29, Bruno Haible wrote:
> This is on gcc119.fsffrance.org (AIX 7.2). About which AIX and GCC versions
> were you complaining?
I neglected to mention: there are two areas in the header file
which define that same structure, with different member names and different
definitions of
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Simple code like this doesn't compile:
>
> #include
>
> // ...
>
> void foo(struct in6_addr *addr)
> {
> return bar(addr->s6_addr, 16);
> }
After fixing the gcc warning "‘return’ with a value, in function returning
void", this code compiles perfectly fine, bo
