Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:00:39 +0200 (EET)
From:	Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender:	peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: djgpp: djgpp/include/string.h,strings.h
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1030205082604.15128I-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.51.0302051345410.1814@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1030205082604 DOT 15128I-100000 AT is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, cvs-richdawe AT delorie DOT com wrote:

> > + #if (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) \
> > +   || !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)
> > +
> > + #endif /* (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) || !__STRICT_ANSI__ */

> Richard, did you try to see whether an old GCC version swallows this
> successfully?  Like compile a program with GCC 2.7.2.x or 2.8?  If not,
> could someone please try that?

I don't see how that would be a problem, but won't this pollute POSIX
namespace?  The older POSIX standard includes all ANSI C89 functions,
but not all C99 functions (if any; I haven't checked).  So that #if
should also check for strict POSIX compliance, and if it's required,
what version of POSIX is requested (presumably the newer POSIX includes
all ANSI C99 functions).  If there are any functions that are both C99
and older POSIX, they need yet another section with its own test.

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

- Raw text -