From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 11 8: 2:52 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E285D37B401; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from espresso.bsdmike.org (espresso.bsdmike.org [65.39.129.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507DE43FAF; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:02:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@espresso.bsdmike.org) Received: by espresso.bsdmike.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 790E89C5F; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:49:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:49:43 -0500 From: Mike Barcroft To: "Andrey A. Chernov" Cc: standards@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CFR: add widely accepted _ISOC99_SOURCE Message-ID: <20030311104943.A88290@espresso.bsdmike.org> References: <20030310061548.GA85361@nagual.pp.ru> <20030310104434.P70629@espresso.bsdmike.org> <20030311144501.GA364@nagual.pp.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030311144501.GA364@nagual.pp.ru>; from ache@nagual.pp.ru on Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:45:02PM +0300 Organization: The FreeBSD Project Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Andrey A. Chernov writes: > Hm, I don't quite understand, which one part you mean? My patch handles > 2 following cases: > > 1) Any _POSIX_C_SOURCE with _ISOC99_SOURCE. It is from real life example > (ImageMagick). It wants lower POSIX level, *but* wants _ISOC99_SOURCE in > the same time. I don't like this at all. The meaning of _ANSI_SOURCE is that the source is exclusively written in C89 with no BSD, POSIX, or XSI extentions. Similarly, I was intending _C99_SOURCE to be used without any POSIX. Programs looking for C99+POSIX functions should specify POSIX.1-2001, which incorporates both of these. > 2) _ISOC99_SOURCE without any _POSIX_C_SOURCE. In that case it overrides > _ANSI_SOURCE like old _C99_SOURCE does. Yes, _ANSI_SOURCE and any other standard constant are mutually exclusive. Defining _C99_SOURCE or _ANSI_SOURCE with some other standard constant results in unspecified behaviour. I'd like to keep things this way if you're going to rename _C99_SOURCE. Best regards, Mike BArcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message