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

Emanuele Torre
2024-05-26T15:12:02Z

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