This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: What does it mean to include pthread.h with -std=c11?
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:29:08 -0500
- Subject: Re: What does it mean to include pthread.h with -std=c11?
- References: <bdbc364a-0dde-fc11-dde5-0df89bdb0abd@redhat.com> <87bls2oj56.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
On 12/20/19 3:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>
>> I'm on the fence here because it _used_ to work, and so it seems like at
>> some point we might have gone from (1) -> (2) without a deeper discussion
>> about exactly what kind of behaviour and maintenance responsibility we want
>> for these headers.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> We have a test for this, see scripts/check-installed-headers.sh. It
> just fails to catch cases such as this because it cannot test that all
> the defined macros can be expanded.
>
> I think there are no two sides here. #include <pthread.h> must work
> in ISO C mode. Everything else is just very wrong.
>
> (We even sprinkle __extension across the headers to suppress pedantic
> warnings.)
I think that poistion is very reasonable, and I think it's what users
would expect to happen. What do we estimate is our long-term maintenance
code to support this? Can we expand our testing to look for issues like
this?
I'm interested in hearing input from Adhemerval, Andreas, and Joseph.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.