Re: [boost] Re: true64cxx and toupper

From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-12 10:59:31

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:15:41PM +0200, Markus Sch?pflin wrote:

> >(No sigaction (XSH4.0), no nanosleep (P1003.1b), and no 
> >clock_gettime(P1003.1b), to get those you have to define _XOPEN_SOURCE 
> >or _POSIX_SOURCE or some such.)
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I have been doing some more research on this. When _PURE_CNAME is in 
> effect (which it is when using "-std strict_ansi") there is no way (read 
> as: I didn't find one) to get at those functions, no matter how you 
> define _XOPEN_SOURCE or _POSIX_SOURCE because the C++ compiler brings 
> its own set of C header files which don't include the system header 
> files in that case.

Ouch! so strict_ansi means "strict ANSI and nothing else, if it wasn't
listed in ISO 14882 it doesn't exist and you're not allowed to use it,
in fact, you shouldn't even know about it. Who told you there was a
function called nanosleep?"

I suppose it means you can write a program that includes names such as
nanosleep in the global namespace without getting unintened clashes from 
the standard headers. But it would be nice if there was an alternative
way of getting at the POSIX etc. names.

> Therefore this option is out of question, I think.

You've convinced me, I'll shut up  :)

jon