On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:44:34 -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Andrey A. Chernov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
