Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:05:42 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conundrum: _C99_SOURCE vs. sigset Message-ID: <200608040905.43271@aldan> In-Reply-To: <20060804065629.GB89735@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> References: <200608031547.34386.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <200608031817.23847.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060804065629.GB89735@wombat.fafoe.narf.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:56, Stefan Farfeleder wrote: = > > The macro _C99_SOURCE is for pure C99 code and _ANSI_SOURCE for C90 = > > code. Both don't include the <pthread.h> header. = > = > They do -- it gets included from iostream, even when I define one of = > those. = = No, what I meant was that <pthread.h> isn't defined by neither C90 nor = C99 but by POSIX. Defining _C99_SOURCE or _ANSI_SOURCE hides additional = POSIX/BSD identifiers in shared headers which is a bad idea if you want = to include <pthread.h>; as you've seen it leads to errors. I don't, actually, include pthread.h. iostream does -- that's the problem :-( Thanks! -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200608040905.43271>