stdio.h patches for g++ -std=c++11

[zosrothko]

Le 09/05/2014 12:03, Richard Earnshaw a écrit :
> On 09/05/14 11:01, zosrothko wrote:
>> Corinna
>> Le 09/05/2014 10:43, Corinna Vinschen a écrit :
>>> On May  9 07:52, zosrothko wrote:
>>>> Hi Corinna
>>>>
>>>> I made a typo in my previous patch. Here the corrected one.
>>> Thanks.  Your patches are missing a matching ChangeLog entry, btw.
>>>
>>> However, on second thought I'm not sure that removing the 'i' variations
>>> of the functions from "__cplusplus >= 201103L" in this way is such a
>>> good idea.
>>>
>>> The 'i' functions are a newlib extension for embedded targets.
>>>
>>> They are not part of any standard, so they are certainly neither part
>>> of "__cplusplus >= 201103L", nor part of "__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L".
>>>
>>> So, either we remove these functions from both standards, or we include
>>> them in both standards.
>>>
>>> But if we remove them from both standards when will they be defined at
>>> all?  This should be cleared up before making this change.
>>>
>>> Is defining them with only
>>>
>>>     #if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)
>>>
>>> sufficient?
>> That won't work because of this
>>
>> $ g++ -xc++ -std=c++11 -dM -E - < /dev/null | sort | grep ANSI
>> #define __STRICT_ANSI__ 1
>>
>> $ g++ -xc++ -std=gnu++11 -dM -E - < /dev/null | sort | grep ANSI
>>
>> $
>>
>>
>> g++ with -std=gnu++11 does not define __STRICT_ANSI__ while g++ -std=c++11 does and those previous printfs functions and only those should be defined for c++11. The other traditional stdio functions should be defined only for g++11 and for traditional C.
>>
>> People that does not care about compliance will use the gnu++11 version while those that cares about compliance must use the c++11 version and so should be aligned the printfs series from stdio.h
>>
>>
>> Here at http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/ is described which functions borrowed from C are included in the new c++11 standard. I worked for now only on the stdio.h functions but all includes should be checked against the strict compliance for c++11.
>> zos
>>
>>
> GNU++11 is C++11 with extensions.  I don't see a problem with having the
> i functions in that case.
There is no problem for having the i functions for gnu++11... but not 
for c++11

Just to emphase on the compliance for c++11: snprintf is part of the 
c++11 standard while fprintf, fscanf, printf, scanf, sprintf are not..

zos
>
> R.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Corinna
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S.: For the time being, I removed the fcloseall function from this
>>>         declaration block and made its decalration dependent on
>>>         __GNU_VISIBLE.
>>>
>>
>
>