Movatterモバイル変換

This is the mail archive of thelibc-alpha@sourceware.orgmailing list for theglibc project.

Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] manual: Document missing feature test macros.

• From: Rical Jasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
• To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
• Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
• Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:36:11 -0700
• Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] manual: Document missing feature test macros.
• Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
• References: <20170728034305.13389-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <98c619b4-7058-d281-1020-8455a806307d@pacific.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708102220320.8101@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On 08/10/2017 03:26 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:> OK, but suggested followups:> > * In the description of _DEFAULT_SOURCE, note that features from the C > standard version used by the compiler are also enabled by default.  (With > GCC 5 and later, which defaults to -std=gnu11, that means C11 features are > enabled, but unlike C99 they aren't part of the 2008 edition of POSIX, so > aren't already included in the description of default features.)How would you like that said?  That whole paragraph refers to /either/feature test macros /or/ compiler options, and uses examples of thelatter, so I already read it as implying if you use a specific compileroption such as -std=gnu11, you get what it entails, along with anythingthat is "default":"defining it together with other feature test macros, or when optionssuch as @option{-ansi} are used, enables those features even when theother options would otherwise cause them to be disabled."Documenting the compiler's defaults is probably out of scope.> * Remove the statement about C99 not being widely adopted from the > description of _ISOC99_SOURCE.  By now, C99 is widely adopted (in the Unix > world; I'm not sure about the state of Microsoft's compiler in that > regard, they've historically been better at keeping up with C++ than with > C).How is this:"@Theglibc{} has a complete implementation of the @w{ISO C99} standard,and to enable its features, the macro @code{_ISOC99_SOURCE} should bedefined."> * Consider obsoleting _ATFILE_SOURCE and making it into an alias for > _POSIX_C_SOURCE = 200809L if _POSIX_C_SOURCE is undefined or has a lower > value (similar to the _REENTRANT obsoletion); I don't think we really need > a separate feature test macro for this subset of POSIX features.As this requires more extensive changes throughout, I'll do thisseparately, but I think the other issues can be incorporated in a v3.Rical

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] manual: Document missing feature test macros.
    • From: Joseph Myers

• References:
  • [PING] [PATCH v2] manual: Document missing feature test macros.
    • From: Rical Jasan
  • Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] manual: Document missing feature test macros.
    • From: Joseph Myers