Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:45:02 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CFR: add widely accepted _ISOC99_SOURCE Message-ID: <20030311144501.GA364@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030310104434.P70629@espresso.bsdmike.org> References: <20030310061548.GA85361@nagual.pp.ru> <20030310104434.P70629@espresso.bsdmike.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:44:34 -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> writes: > > Many programs (from ports too) defines _ISOC99_SOURCE to get C99 > > functions, but we don't sense this define currently. Here is the fix for > > review: > > Cool. I didn't realize there was an existing precedence, or I would > have used it. Just search Google about _ISOC99_SOURCE and see :-) > This part isn't needed... > > > #else > > /*- > > * Deal with _ANSI_SOURCE: > > @@ -378,7 +381,7 @@ > > #define __XSI_VISIBLE 0 > > #define __BSD_VISIBLE 0 > > #define __ISO_C_VISIBLE 1990 > > -#elif defined(_C99_SOURCE) /* Localism to specify strict C99 env. */ > > +#elif defined(_ISOC99_SOURCE) /* Strict C99 env. */ > > #define __POSIX_VISIBLE 0 > > #define __XSI_VISIBLE 0 > > #define __BSD_VISIBLE 0 > > ...since the next line here is: > > #define __ISO_C_VISIBLE 1999 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. 2) _ISOC99_SOURCE without any _POSIX_C_SOURCE. In that case it overrides _ANSI_SOURCE like old _C99_SOURCE does. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030311144501.GA364>