Porting to DragonFly BSD

Tyson Whitehead twhitehead at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 13:41:04 EST 2009

On November 9, 2009 12:39:25 Goetz Isenmann wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:44:47AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > We should get these patches into GHC.  Most of them look
> > straightforward, but I'm slightly suspicious of this:
> >
> >
> > why was that necessary?
> Good that you ask. Can't remember why it was necessary back in april
> to build ghc-6.10.2 on dragonfly-2.2.1. Cannot reproduce the problem
> today with ghc-6.10.4 on dragonfly-2.4.1.
> I am glad, that we do not need this define any more. I think it was a
> ugly workaround at best.

I'm not sure about dragonfly, but there are a bunch of similar options for 
glibc under Linux.  For example, "man feature_test_macros" says you need to 
define _POSIX_C_SOURCE to 199309 or greater to use POSIX.1b functionality.

Cheers!  -Tyson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20091109/40d3186b/attachment.bin

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list