This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3] manual: Add new header and standards annotations.
- From: Rical Jasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 21:33:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] manual: Add new header and standards annotations.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20161123063807.14845-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <20161123063807.14845-4-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611231733010.31292@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <64fa1a5a-4af3-5e3f-b192-e79203c3e328@pacific.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611241318060.2194@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 11/24/2016 05:37 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> As for names corresponding to standards / feature test macros, I suggest
> one possibility:
>
> C90 (everything is a superset of this apart from gets obsoletion)
> C95
> C99
> C11
> (note that these four are normally selected with -std, not with feature
> test macros, though glibc has _ISOC99_SOURCE and _ISOC11_SOURCE)
> TR 27431-2:2010
> TS 18661-1:2014
> TS 18661-4:2015
> POSIX.1 (= 1990 edition)
> POSIX.2
> POSIX.1-1993
> POSIX.1-1995
> POSIX.1-2001
> XSI POSIX.1-2001
> POSIX.1-2008
> XSI POSIX.1-2008
> DEFAULT
> GNU
> XOPEN (= __USE_XOPEN; listed as XPG3 in conform/ tests; corresponds to
> functions in C435 that are not UX-shaded)
> XPG4 (= __USE_XOPEN_EXTENDED; corresponds to everything in C435)
> UNIX98
> LFS (= __USE_LARGEFILE64, i.e. *64 functions)
Since there haven't been any other proposals or comments on this one,
I'm using this list, but I was curious: is there a technical reason for
not using, e.g., "ISO C90"?
Rical