[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: darwin, gcc, and static inline
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: darwin, gcc, and static inline |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:49:28 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 |
On 12/12/12 11:21, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> Can you please instead just '#define _DONT_USE_CTYPE_INLINE_ 1'
I had considered that, but unfortunately as I understand it
we'd still have problems when compiling C code
with GCC in the now-typical case where _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0,
because in that case <secure/_string.h> misuses static inline
in the same way when implementing memcpy etc.
I suppose one option would be to put this into config.h:
#ifdef __APPLE__
# define _DONT_USE_CTYPE_INLINE_ 1
# define _FORTIFY_SOURCE 0
#endif
but it's pretty drastic to disable Fortify, and I'd rather
not do that.
I'll CC: this to bug-gnulib to give Gnulibers a heads-up
on these suggestions -- maybe someone else who's
an OS X expert can think of a better workaround.
In the long run, I hope Apple fixes the bugs (as they're clearly
violations of the C99 standard) and I hope that there
will be a way for gnulib to detect that the bugs have been fixed
so that it can stop using the current workaround.
- Re: darwin, gcc, and static inline,
Paul Eggert <=