Bug#171851: More missing math.h prototypes
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"
Reply to: