Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>]

On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote:

> So given the track record (building itself, building base, building
> 21,000 software ports) over a couple of years I think any issues this
> could have caused would have been seen and identified by now.

These issues aren't generally obvious (given that the ISO C conformance 
modes aren't used that often, and when they are that doesn't mean the 
application is using POSIX types for something else).

> > (I don't know what the FreeBSD <sys/_types.h> defines, but it at least 
> > seems possible from the name that it is only defining things in the 
> > implementation namespace, with the public <sys/types.h> being what then 
> > includes <sys/_types.h> and does "typedef __foo_t foo_t;" or similar to 
> > provide the public POSIX types that aren't in ISO C.)
> 
> Here are the headers in question:
> http://grok.dragonflybsd.org/xref/freebsd/sys/sys/_types.h

That seems OK for <stddef.h> inclusion, as long as the <machine/_types.h> 
is OK.

> http://grok.dragonflybsd.org/xref/dragonfly/sys/sys/types.h

That's definitely not correct to include in <stddef.h>; it defines lots of 
types outside the ISO C namespace.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com