On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 11:21:37AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 11:19:32AM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote: [snip] > > Aha. That explains it. So these functions are only defined for ISO C99? > > Yes. Declaring something named "round" when it isn't part of the > relevant language standard is a bit much, don't you think? :)
What is the "relevant language standard"? (By which I assume you're talking about the default standard used when you don't define any of these _XXX_SOURCE macros.) From a cursory glance at various manpages, there seems to be multiple versions of ISO 9899, and presumably C99 is a later draft? It seems to be that the "default" behaviour of gcc (or more precisely, the header files) should be to use a later standard, but of course, that is just my not-very-well-informed opinion. [snip] > > Is this indicated in the docs, though? As far as I can tell, the info > > pages do not indicate that C99 mode is needed to use these functions. > > Hmm, I don't see it either. The manpages do indicate clearly which functions belong to which standard(s), although it isn't always obvious that you need to specifically define _ISOC99_SOURCE. Perhaps I should glean this info from the manpages and submit a patch for glibc-doc? [snip] > > Anyway, this bug now looks like a documentation bug/deficiency. The > > manpages should add #define _ISO_SOURCE (or whatever the proper name was, > > I forgot) for these functions, and the info pages should indicate the C99 > > prerequisite as well. > > Either -D_GNU_SOURCE or -D_ISOC99_SOURCE (or _ISOC9X_SOURCE or > __STDC_VERSION__=199901L). [snip] Thanks, I'll keep that in mind when patching glibc-doc. (Although I probably should leave out _GNU_SOURCE, since that is non-standard? :-P) T -- One reason that few people are aware there are programs running the internet is that they never crash in any significant way: the free software underlying the internet is reliable to the point of invisibility. -- Glyn Moody, from the article "Giving it all away"
