From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129149 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2019 15:39:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 129102 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2019 15:39:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1390 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: Florian Weimer To: Joseph Myers Cc: Subject: Re: Add feature test macro _ISOC2X_SOURCE References: <87k1bm6c99.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Joseph Myers's message of "Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:00:10 +0000") Message-ID: <87r25uz6t5.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 * 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 ), 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