This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH][BZ 17979][BZ 17721] Fix issues with sys/cdefs.h and uchar.h when using non-gcc compiler.
- From: Dwight Guth <dwight dot guth at runtimeverification dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Dwight Guth <dwight dot guth at runtimeverification dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:28:20 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][BZ 17979][BZ 17721] Fix issues with sys/cdefs.h and uchar.h when using non-gcc compiler.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <27c31890079f41775175b94a4abedb0c dot squirrel at server316 dot webhostingpad dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601282115100 dot 6102 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CACLXh_1_dQ5D1QrKQN0pVPzt001WmS4BgwcKZkULK8XnbEMb+g at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601282246340 dot 6102 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CACLXh_3rAudocTEbtZQpVoDcWgm_ww3KcX6j9XCkSRTZVPTUMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601282251350 dot 6102 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20160128225845 dot GE14840 at vapier dot lan> <CACLXh_2711o7YKAXZXU2-OGvhcN0Z1TrBoiqi7PK9GpR_sR_mQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601282316440 dot 6102 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
Yes, that's reasonable. What would you see as the correct resolution
to the issue?
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Dwight Guth wrote:
>
>> It also seems strange to me to be declaring functions in header files
>> with different types than are mandated by the standard just because it
>> won't matter in most cases... It also sounds to me like a highly
>
> I didn't say that's the reason, simply pointed out that there is no
> conformance bug from missing the restrict qualifiers - the reason is more
> likely that no-one in practice tends to use the glibc headers with
> compilers not defining __GNUC__ (they use non-GNU compilers, but non-GNU
> compilers that define __GNUC__ to indicate support for GNU extensions) and
> so there has been very little interest in fixing hypothetical issues with
> such compilers (and where people have submitted such patches, they've
> drifted away without resolving issues from review and pinging as needed).
> Combined with: __restrict in the headers may well date back to before C99
> was released and so before the final __STDC_VERSION__ value was known.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com