-D_HAVE_ISOC9X_SOURCE and gcc -std=c99

[Stefano Sabatini]

Hi all,

I would like to know what you guys consider more portable (as far
as I can understand it -std=c99 is a gcc specific option).

Also can you say what's the difference between
-D_HAVE_ISOC9X_S OURCE

and
-D_HAVE_ISOC99_S OURCE

or can you provide a pointer to the documentation for these macros?

Many thanks in advance.
--
Stefano Sabatini
Linux user number 337176 (see http://counter.li.org)

[Keith Thompson]

Re: -D_HAVE_ISOC9X_S OURCE and gcc -std=c99

Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabati ni@caos.orgwrit es:

I would like to know what you guys consider more portable (as far
as I can understand it -std=c99 is a gcc specific option).

Please put the entire question in the body of the article. Some
newsreaders make it difficult to see the subject header, which was:

Subject: -D_HAVE_ISOC9X_S OURCE and gcc -std=c99

Also can you say what's the difference between
-D_HAVE_ISOC9X_S OURCE
>
and
-D_HAVE_ISOC99_S OURCE
>
or can you provide a pointer to the documentation for these macros?

Neither "-std=c99", "_HAVE_ISOC9X_S OURCE", nor "_HAVE_ISOC99_S OURCE"
are standard features. I know that "-std=c99" is gcc-specific (and it
*doesn't* give you full C99 compliance). I don't see either
"_HAVE_ISOC9X_S OURCE", or "_HAVE_ISOC99_S OURCE" in the gcc
documentation

Try gnu.gcc.help.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <kst-u@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"