Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Feb 9, 2008 5:57 AM, Christopher Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >>> On Feb 8, 2008 10:58 PM, Christopher Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Enlightenment CVS wrote: >>>>> Enlightenment CVS committal >>>>> >>>>> Author : barbieri >>>>> Project : e17 >>>>> Module : apps/e >>>>> >>>>> Dir : e17/apps/e/src/bin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Modified Files: >>>>> e_icon.c e_slider.c >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Log Message: >>>>> Fix warnings. >>>>> >>>> SNIP >>>>> +#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600 >>>>> #include "e.h" >>>>> +#include <math.h> >>>>> >>>> This seems a little strange here...IIRC, e.h already includes <math.h> >>> Interesting, why would e.h include math.h? >>> >> Well, the "why" of it I am not sure of, but check e.h, you will see it >> in there. Perhaps there are some other math functions being used in E >> source somewhere ?? > > Well, it will not matter that much (could just improve compile time) > to have more files than required in the headers, but usually it's good > to not include "just to avoid including in the .c". > Oh I'm not arguing :) Just pointing out that it was already in e.h...
> >>> also, some people like _XOPEN_SOURCE defined in the source, some want >>> it defined by configure package and some don't define it, let it to >>> user add if they want. Is it ok to leave this in the file? >>> >> IMO, I don't see why we need it. We've never defined it anywhere else >> before... > > man round: > > Feature Test Macro Requirements for glibc (see feature_test_macros(7)): > > round(), roundf(), roundl(): _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 600 || > _ISOC99_SOURCE; or cc -std=c99 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
