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]

Re: [RFC] Canonical Standards Names

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Rical Jasan wrote:

> On 06/21/2017 04:03 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > We need standard needs for everything feature test macros distinguish.
> Would a good first step be syncing creature.texi to features.h?  The
> manual doesn't document 201112L or 200809L for _POSIX_C_SOURCE, 600 or
> _ISOC11_SOURCE.  Should features.h contain a comment for developers to
> update creature.texi if any feature test macros change?

Yes, I think all the supported feature test macros should be documented.  
(I don't think use of _ISOC99_SOURCE or _ISOC11_SOURCE should be 
*encouraged*; normally people should get those features via compiling with 
appropriate -std options to define the right __STDC_VERSION__ value; GCC 
>= 5 defaults to -std=gnu11 and so makes the C11 features visible by 
default, while _DEFAULT_SOURCE implies _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L which 
implies C99 features.  But in a year or two I expect we'll have 
_ISOC2X_SOURCE to enable features from the following C major revision 
while it's in development.)

> Then, a set of standards could be derived from all the possible feature
> test macros.  Would we then document with each macro (and any specific
> values) in creature.texi the corresponding name used in @standards?

Yes, I think creature.texi should, when @standards is rendered visibly in 
the manual, say what names are used in the rendering of @standards.

Joseph S. Myers

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