another possibly silly observation -- /usr/include/features.h makes
no mention of _ISOC95_SOURCE in the early comment listing all(?) of
the possible feature test macros:
... snip ...
__STRICT_ANSI__ ISO Standard C.
_ISOC99_SOURCE Extensions to ISO C89 from ISO C99.
_ISOC11_SOURCE Extensions to ISO C99 from ISO C11.
_POSIX_SOURCE IEEE Std 1003.1.
... snip ...
despite its "USE" macro being mentioned further down in the same
comment:
... snip ...
__USE_ISOC11 Define ISO C11 things.
__USE_ISOC99 Define ISO C99 things.
__USE_ISOC95 Define ISO C90 AMD1 (C95) things.
... snip ...
as well as even further down:
#undef __USE_ISOC95
...
#ifdef _GNU_SOURCE
# undef _ISOC95_SOURCE
# define _ISOC95_SOURCE 1
...
/* This is to enable the ISO C90 Amendment 1:1995 extension. */
#if (defined _ISOC99_SOURCE || defined _ISOC11_SOURCE \
|| (defined __STDC_VERSION__ && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199409L))
# define __USE_ISOC95 1
#endif
...
i notice in the man pages Changes file the reference that
_ISOC95_SOURCE is now allegedly bogus:
feature_test_macros.7
Michael Kerrisk [Joseph S. Myers]
Remove mention of bogus _ISOC95_SOURCE macro
The _ISOC95_SOURCE macro is defined in <features.h>, but it
does nothing. So remove discussion of it, and move some of
the discussion of C95 under the ISOC99_SOURCE subhead.
but there appear to still be a couple checks for it:
man3/fwide.3:_ISOC95_SOURCE /* Since glibc 2.12 */ ||
man3/wprintf.3:_ISOC95_SOURCE /* Since glibc 2.12 */ ||
thoughts?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
