Hi Eric, On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 01:31:38AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > - POSIX.1-2001 > > > > > > This one defers to C89 anywhere that it is not explicitly documenting > > > with CX shading. > > > > Ahh, I had thought it would defer to C99 because it's older, but I guess > > it's like POSIX.1-2024 that doesn't defer to C23. Thanks! Then I stand > > corrected, and glibc conforms to POSIX.1-2001. > > I was reading the memccpy(3) specification in POSIX.1-2004, and found > this: > > Issue 6 > > The restrict keyword is added to the memccpy() prototype > for alignment with the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard. > > So, Issue 6 aligned with ISO C99? Is this exceptional, or does then > POSIX.1-2001 not defer to ISO C89?
POSIX.1-2004 certainly seems to be using deferring to C99, as it has the c99(1) shell utility. <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html#tag_02_01_04_02> and has several references to ISO/IEC 9899:1999. <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html#tag_02_02_01> But I didn't find any to C89. Which means, glibc didn't conform to POSIX.1-2004 (and much likely, neither to POSIX.1-2001; but I don't have a link to that). Anyway, I guess n3612 will solve our problems forever, hopefully. See you! :) Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
