Obsolete and Removed POSIX Functions
Wed Feb 17 16:53:00 GMT 2016
On Feb 15 14:07, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2016-02-15 13:37, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >On 2/15/2016 1:21 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >>On 2016-02-15 13:09, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >>>I am unsure how methods noted by POSIX as obsolete should
> >>>be guarded.
> >>>For example, asctime() and asctime_r() were marked as obsolescent
> >>>in Issue 7.
> >>obsolete != removed:
> >Agreed. But an aggressive approach would be to warn users
> >and recommend changes. Obsolete is the first step on the
> >path to removal.
> >If I had working code that used an obsolete methods, I
> >wouldn't read a man page to see that I used a methods which
> >was on the way out. I wouldn't notice this unless I was lucky
> >or writing new code.
> >Just wondering if there is a possibility of an action that
> >is helpful to users.
> Technically it would be possible to mark these
> __attribute__((__deprecated__)) if __POSIX2008_VISIBLE. I'm not sure if
> that *should* be done or not.
I'm really not sure about that. How's that handled in BSDs or GLibc?
I think none of them adds the deprecated attribute to functions still
implemented and mentioned in *some* standard.
> There are some cases where __CYGWIN__ and/or __rtems__ are used because that
> feature is only implemented on those system(s) and other cases where they
> are clearly in place of a proper feature test. The question is if the
> headers really need to reflect the former.
Probably not, unless it's required to guard against contradicting
definitions (e.g., in rtems/Cygwin-only headers).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Newlib