Re: Add feature test macro _ISOC2X_SOURCE

[Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>]

* Joseph Myers:

> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Joseph Myers:
>> 
>> > This patch does not itself enable anything new in the headers for C2X;
>> > that is to be done in followup patches.  (For example, most of the TS
>> > 18661-1 functions should be declared for C2X without any
>> > __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_BFP_EXT__ being needed, but the ones that
>> > 18661-1 adds to Annex F because of their close relation to IEEE 754
>> > formats do still need the WANT macro in C2X.)
>> 
>> What happened to the plan to rename the TS 18661-1 functions?  Has a
>> formal decision been made?
>
> There isn't a plan; there's someone who wants to rename either some or all 
> functions, while the CFP group is against ("3) Renaming functions: 
> Against, since already implemented as is, names fit with pre-part 1 C, 
> consistent with existing C standard, names fit function" - see pages 28-29 
> of <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2376.pdf>), and no 
> specific decision ("This risk has not yet been evaluated. Several ideas 
> have been discussed to resolve these issue, but none has yet resulted in a 
> proposal that would find consensus." in the editors' report).

I see, thanks for the explanation.

Regarding the actual patch, do you expect _ISOC2X_SOURCE to enable C11
and earlier extensions?  If not, why not?

Thanks,
Florian