Re: Mismatch between newlib and glibc regarding fileno

On 2024-02-12 20:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 12 20:27, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024-02-12 19:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>
>>>> How is it possible that with -std=c++98, everything and the kitchen sink
>>>> is enabled?  Is that really correct?!?
>>>
>>> See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11196> (though
>>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2082> is older).  Much of
>>> the standard C++ library implementation is in the headers, which makes it
>>> tricky to implement without _GNU_SOURCE when the C++ library wants to use
>>> (internally) lots of features not in ISO C.
>>>
>>
>> So, based on this, is it correct that newlib includes the check for
>> __STRICT_ANSI__?
>>
>> I.e., should GCC tests be updated to add -D_POSIX_SOURCE or should the check
>> for __STRICT_ANSI__ be removed from the newlib features.h file? Or maybe
>> both should be done?
> 
> glibc's feature.h performs the same __STRICT_ANSI__ checks, afaics.

I've pushed a patch on GCC14 that defines _POSIX_SOURCE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/645731.html

Don't know if someone will look more into why newlib has a different set 
of defines than newlib, but I'm happy with that the test cases no longer 
produces fails in the log.

Kind regards,
Torbjörn