Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:49:43 -0500 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CFR: add widely accepted _ISOC99_SOURCE Message-ID: <20030311104943.A88290@espresso.bsdmike.org> In-Reply-To: <20030311144501.GA364@nagual.pp.ru>; from ache@nagual.pp.ru on Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:45:02PM %2B0300 References: <20030310061548.GA85361@nagual.pp.ru> <20030310104434.P70629@espresso.bsdmike.org> <20030311144501.GA364@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030311104943.A88290>