Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 08:56:30 +0200 From: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conundrum: _C99_SOURCE vs. sigset Message-ID: <20060804065629.GB89735@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> In-Reply-To: <200608031817.23847.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200608031547.34386.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060803213839.GH33267@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <200608031817.23847.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 06:17:23PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > четвер 03 серпень 2006 17:38, Stefan Farfeleder написав: > > Try -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112. > > Thanks, I will. > > > The macro _C99_SOURCE is for pure C99 code and _ANSI_SOURCE for C90 > > code. Both don't include the <pthread.h> header. > > They do -- it gets included from iostream, even when I define one of those. No, what I meant was that <pthread.h> isn't defined by neither C90 nor C99 but by POSIX. Defining _C99_SOURCE or _ANSI_SOURCE hides additional POSIX/BSD identifiers in shared headers which is a bad idea if you want to include <pthread.h>; as you've seen it leads to errors. Stefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060804065629.GB89735>