is _ISOC95_SOURCE a valid feature test macro or not?

is _ISOC95_SOURCE a valid feature test macro or not?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: is _ISOC95_SOURCE a valid feature test macro or not?

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

On 03/19/2014 01:30 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   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.

Joseph pointed out to me that defining _ISOC95_SOURCE actually does 
nothing. So it really is bogus. There is the __USE_ISOC95 macro
that is used internally. But, I think for most purposes
we can consider that to be subsumed under C99.

> 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 */ ||

Those to are bogus, and now I've removed them. Thanks for 
catching that.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html