Andrey A. Chernov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
