> It's the fact of its being defined which indicates features - it's tested in > the GNU headers to decide what functionality to make visible. The norm is > just to define it, or to define it to 1; setting it to __STRICT_ANSI__ would > be a very confusing thing to do since the whole point of defining it is to > say that you don't want __STRICT_ANSI__.
Thanks, I parsed the comments in the header incorrectly. > Why do you want to be able to build on an OS released in 2012 with a > C89-only compiler? I'm probably missing something, but I'm struggling to > understand the point of this. I'm not sure what the reason are. But for me, as long as its a claim or a requirement, it gets tested to ensure goals are being met. Jeff -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
