From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2243 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2014 16:11:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2192 invoked by uid 55); 10 Nov 2014 16:11:25 -0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libobjc/63765] [5.0 Regression] libobjc testsuite failures on AIX caused by setting _XOPEN_SOURCE Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:11:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libobjc X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: major X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ro at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00740.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn --- > Yes, the single objc failure existed before the patch. But I don't know if > *other* targets need _XOPEN_SOURCE=500. True, but now (end of stage1) is the time to find out. In most compilation environments, defining no feature test macros gives you the superset of everything available. Ultimately, it's Andrew's call. Rainer