Re: [PATCH] grantpt.3: explicitly mention #define _XOPEN_SOURCE requirement

[Emanuele Torre <torreemanuele6@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 04:54:26PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Emanuele,
> 
> On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 04:19:30PM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> > I've just noticed that ptsname.3 is also missing  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE
> > in its synopsis; however  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE  does not seem to work.
> Did you define it to 500, or an empty value?

empty value.

> 
> You need to define it to an appropriate value.  (The synopsis is a bit
> misleading, and we could/should specify the minimum value.)

I did notice the

    ptsname():
        Since glibc 2.24:
            _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500
        glibc 2.23 and earlier:
            _XOPEN_SOURCE

But that is the same text that appears in grantpt.3 and unlockpt.3, and
they get included with just _XOPEN_SOURCE.

I also noticed it this morning when I sent my patch for grantpt.3, but I
ignored it assuming I probably misunderstood its meaning since it worked
with just _XOPEN_SOURCE.

Does this mean that my grantpt.3 patch is wrong?

And that  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE  in the synopsys of unlockpt.3 is also
wrong?

I should not use just  #define _XOPEN_SOURCE  without a value in my
programs if I want to use ptsname(3), grantpt(3), unlockpt(3)?

o/
 emanuele6