This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: _ATFILE_SOURCE Obsoletion
- From: Rical Jasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:01:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: _ATFILE_SOURCE Obsoletion
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <e960475e-bde6-0a05-496a-35ae1cf95892@pacific.net> <mvm60bc4wt5.fsf@suse.de>
On 10/18/2017 02:41 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 18 2017, Rical Jasan <ricaljasan@pacific.net> wrote:
>
>> Does it really serve a useful purpose to broaden the definition of
>> _ATFILE_SOURCE? I understand the desire to cease support of historical
>> artifacts, but I would rather remove support entirely than merely change
>> the definition. While POSIX.1-2008 may imply __USE_ATFILE,
>> _ATFILE_SOURCE does not necessarily imply all of POSIX.1-2008.
>
> Is _ATFILE_SOURCE actually used in the wild in the strict sense?
It is prevalent enough to make determining that an ordeal. There are
roughly 50 packages on https://codesearch.debian.net/ that use it.
Whether any use it in a context that doesn't expect or requires
_POSIX_C_SOURCE to not be at least 200809L, is practically an audit.
Rical