This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]


On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:17:59PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> In more detail:
> The status quo is that the features enabled by _BSD_SOURCE or
> _SVID_SOURCE are enabled (a) if the applicable one of those macros is
> defined by the user (a case that will no longer be supported), (b) by
> default, if the user didn't use a compiler option such as -ansi or
> -std=c99 that defines __STRICT_ANSI__ and didn't define
> _BSD_SOURCE or _SVID_SOURCE), (c) if _GNU_SOURCE is defined.  There's
> the oddity of (b) not checking _ISOC11_SOURCE, but it's not the
> function of this patch to change anything in that regard.

I'm not 100% against this change, but how do you propose getting the
current default profile of what's exposed in the header along with
correct C semantics at the compiler level? -std=c99 and -std=c11,
which are needed to get the compiler to behave right (gnu99 has lots
of problems), define __STRICT_ANSI__ which inhibits all the default
features. -U__STRICT_ANSI__ might work but this seems hackish...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]