From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 12 17:35:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C629A106566B for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:35:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (ZIM.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.101]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4A58FC20 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o5CHZn08006033; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:35:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id o5CHZnxF006032; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:35:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:35:49 -0400 From: David Schultz To: Florian Forster Message-ID: <20100612173549.GA5878@zim.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Florian Forster , freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20090504112916.GI25815@verplant.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090504112916.GI25815@verplant.org> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: isnan(3) not available in C99/POSIX2001 mode X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:35:50 -0000 On Mon, May 04, 2009, Florian Forster wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having problems compiling a C99 program and I believe this to be a > problem in FreeBSD's libc. > > In the macro `isnan' is defined. The macro checks the size of > its argument to determine whether it's a float, double, or long double > and calls `isnanf', `isnan', or `__isnanl' respectively. The problem is > that the `isnan' macro is defined if `__ISO_C_VISIBLE >= 1999' but > `isnanf' is only declared if `__BSD_VISIBLE' is defined. In my case (C99 > and POSIX 2001 requested) this results in a syntax error: This is fixed in 9-CURRENT. Sorry for the delay.