[issue1759169] clean up Solaris port and allow C99 extension modules

[John Levon]

John Levon <movement at users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:

Just came across this bug.

_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED isn't the only sticking point here: neither XPG3
nor XPG4 have C99 either: _XOPEN_SOURCE (at least with a value below
600) is definitely wrong. To quote the header:

"346  * It is invalid to compile an XPG3, XPG4, XPG4v2, or XPG5 application
347  * using c99.  The same is true for POSIX.1-1990, POSIX.2-1992,
POSIX.1b,
348  * and POSIX.1c applications. Likewise, it is invalid to compile an XPG6
349  * or a POSIX.1-2001 application with anything other than a c99 or later
350  * compiler.  Therefore, we force an error in both cases.
"

Martin, you are correct that these macros choose particular semantics
in some cases.

However, this does not change my point. It is a fact that specifying
these macros mean what I describe, and that doing so causes significant
problems in compiling Python extensions. We may wish it to be different,
but it's not.

As Solaris has only ever moved towards the POSIX spec, __EXTENSIONS__ is
the right thing to always specify here: it enables everything "modern"
that you need (*including* POSIX semantics - check that signal.h on
Solaris 9 for __EXTENSIONS__), without making any claims about
conformity of Python extensions (which it it is not pyconfig.h's place
to say!).

I hope that's a clearer explanation of why Python is doing the wrong
thing both theoretically and practically for Solaris.

----------
nosy: +movement

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1759169>
_______________________________________