Re: Mismatch between newlib and glibc regarding fileno

On Feb 12 18:11, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> On 2024-02-12 17:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 12 17:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 12 16:36, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> > > > Okay, so newlib is more restrictive than glibc on this topic.
> > > > I will prepare a patch for test cases in GCC with defining _POSIX_SOURCE  so
> > > > that the test cases succeed for newlib.
> > > 
> > > It looks like it.  But I do wonder if that's really intended by glibc.
> > > I ran a quick test, first under newlibL
> > > [...]
> > > How is it possible that with -std=c++98, everything and the kitchen sink
> > > is enabled?  Is that really correct?!?
> > 
> > ...especially since __STRICT_ANSI__ is defined to 1 in this scenario.
> 
> Do you know any way to identify if this is the intended behavior or if it's
> an overlook in the glibc end?

Except for asking on the glibc mailing list, no.

> Regardless if glibc is doing this deliberately or not, I suppose the correct
> thing is to manually define _POSIX_VISIBLE in the test case, right?

Yes, I would suggest that.  It can't be wrong to be very exact there.


Corinna