[Toybox] FreeBSD support patch.

[Rob Landley]

On 05/31/2016 06:33 PM, Felix Janda wrote:
> Just commenting on this:
> 
> Rob Landley wrote:
>> As for the lib/portability.h patch: FreeBSD doesn't have features.h, but
>> Linux and MacOS X agree on that one? Odd. Speaking of which, we have
>> __FreeBSD__ without #including features.h?
> 
> The compiler might define it similarly to how it defines __linux__.
> 
>> As for this bit:
>>
>> -#if !defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__BIONIC__)
>> +#if !defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__BIONIC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD__)
>>
>> If we didn't include features.h, we shouldn't have __GLIBC__ or
>> __BIONIC__ #defined because that's the header that defines them. I'd
>> also assume that if we're building on freebsd, we don't have those
>> #defined either because it's got its own libc? So why add a __FreeBSD__
>> guard symbol here?
> 
> For glibc it seems to me, that almost any header will include
> <features.h>. So including <sys/types.h> is presumably enough to get
> the definition of _GLIBC_. It might also work for the other systems
> targetted by portability.h.

In which case you _do_ have glibc...?

> Felix
> 
> PS: Just to mention, there is also something called kfreebsd [1], which
> will define both _GLIBC_ and __FreeBSD__ (but not __linux__).
> 
> [1]: http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu

Again, you would _have_ glibc. That's what it's testing for.

Rob