Re: [GLIBC][PATCH v2] Remove strdup inlines

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 13 Dec 2016 09:24, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:    
> > we aren't doing this for many other mem/str funcs.  why should we do it
> > for these two ?  we should be all in, or not do any.  imo, we should just
> > omit them and be done unless there is strong/compelling evidence to show
> > otherwise.  if the only point is to support old/uncommon config combos,
> > then that isn't a great reason imo.
> 
> A similar redirection is done for several other functions, including mempcpy, stpcpy
> and bzero. The namespace issue only exists for non-C90 functions that are used
> inside GLIBC, so a small subset of all supported functions.

i think you're conflating those here.  if you look closely, it's for C++
code only, and it's because the signature is different (const-vs-non-const
return).  it's not for the reason you're doing a #define here.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature