At Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:23:12 +0200,
Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
> > How do you think that this bug report should be reassigned to
> > manpages-dev, or simple close?
>
> I've already reassigned it to manpages-dev, and it is already
> fixed-upstream thanks to Michael.
Baurzhan and Michael, thanks for
Hello Masanori (this is your first name, isn't it?),
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 07:48:00PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> How do you think that this bug report should be reassigned to
> manpages-dev, or simple close?
I've already reassigned it to manpages-dev, and it is already
fixed-upstream thanks
tags 314435 fixed-upstream
thanks
> Hello Martin,
>
> I think nanosleep requires #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 199309L. Or do we
> need different pages for nanosleep(2) and nanosleep(3)?
>
> With kind regards,
> Baurzhan.
This is correct. I have fixed this for the next
man-pages release (2.08).
Ch
At Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:13:25 +0200,
Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:29:47PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > Should Linux man page be updated to mention _POSIX_C_SOURCE?
> >
> > I also don't know it should be described to linux man pages - if you
> > think so, please reassi
Hello Martin,
I think nanosleep requires #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 199309L. Or do we
need different pages for nanosleep(2) and nanosleep(3)?
With kind regards,
Baurzhan.
diff -Naurp -X /home/ibr/tmp/root/prg/dontdiff.ibr
manpages-2.02.orig/man2/nanosleep.2 manpages-2.02/man2/nanosleep.2
--- manpag
Hello Masanori,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:29:47PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > Should Linux man page be updated to mention _POSIX_C_SOURCE?
>
> I also don't know it should be described to linux man pages - if you
> think so, please reassign it to manpages-dev. However linux manpages
> is not
At Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:44:00 +0200,
Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
> However, I still have a problem. My intention is to use -std=c99 and
> define macros like _BSD_SOURCE in order to document all portability
> issues at the top of the files. After I defined _POSIX_C_SOURCE to
> 200201L, I'm able to comp
Hello Lars and Daniel,
thanks much for the links and explanations!
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:37:34PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The C standard guarantees (see page 166, 7.1.3, "Reserved identifiers",
> if you have a copy) that the standard headers do not define identifiers
> that the C stand
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:10:44PM +0200, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
> struct timespec and nanosleep are POSIX, and should be defined in time.h
> according to SUSv3 (see, e.g.,
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/nanosleep.html). I
> don't see why strict C99 compliance should affect
to, 2005-06-16 kello 12:10 +0200, Baurzhan Ismagulov kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:47:13PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > The -std=c99 option means that you want strict compliance to the 1999
> > version of the C standard. That standard does not define struct timespec
> > or nanosleep i
Hello Lars,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:47:13PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The -std=c99 option means that you want strict compliance to the 1999
> version of the C standard. That standard does not define struct timespec
> or nanosleep in or anywhere else. Thus, there is no bug.
struct timespe
to, 2005-06-16 kello 10:47 +0200, Baurzhan Ismagulov kirjoitti:
> #include
>
> int main(void)
> {
> struct timespec a;
> nanosleep(&a, &a);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Compilation with "gcc -Wall -g -std=c99" produces the following errors:
>
> c.c: In Funktion »main«:
> c.c:5: error:
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-21
Severity: normal
Hello,
consider the following example:
#include
int main(void)
{
struct timespec a;
nanosleep(&a, &a);
return 0;
}
Compilation with "gcc -Wall -g -std=c99" produces the following errors:
c.c: In Funktion »main
13 matches
Mail list logo
