Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:54:02 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CFR: add widely accepted _ISOC99_SOURCE Message-ID: <20030311175402.GA3885@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030311113754.C88290@espresso.bsdmike.org> References: <20030310061548.GA85361@nagual.pp.ru> <20030310104434.P70629@espresso.bsdmike.org> <20030311144501.GA364@nagual.pp.ru> <20030311104943.A88290@espresso.bsdmike.org> <20030311164240.GA2305@nagual.pp.ru> <20030311113754.C88290@espresso.bsdmike.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[current@ trimmed...] On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:37:54 -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote: > > What to do, if, say, C99 program want to use some POSIX functions from > > lower (and not from higher) POSIX standard? > > I think this is pretty rare. POSIX provides application writers with > lots of time to transition away from deprecated interfaces. What > functions are missing if you change _POSIX_C_SOURCE to 200112L and > remove _ISOC99_SOURCE from the code you posted? If POSIX bumped higher, it compiles cleanly, but I notice that problem with _ISOC99_SOURCE is different: 1) It seems that _ISOC99_SOURCE is Linuxism. 2) In Linux it not means _strict_ C99 environment, but means "turn on C99 extensions". In Linux it is always used _in_addition_ to _GNU_SOURCE, _BSD_SOURCE and other like. It means we can't replace our _C99_SOURCE localism with _ISOC99_SOURCE as in my patch. 3) The question is: should we even support _ISOC99_SOURCE in its current Linux form, i.e. as "turn C99 extensions on"? -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030311175402.GA3885>