[PATCH 2/2] ctype: use less short names in public header

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Nov 30 12:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/11/21 23:15 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 23 Nov 2021 15:09, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > This is wrong and breaks all old versions of C++.
> > 
> > this is a bit vague.  it would help if you provided details as to what broke.
> > i doubt this broke all old versions of C++ everywhere.
> > 
> > i'm guessing you're referring to the GNU C++ (libstdc++) library specifically
> > and its hardcoding of newlib's internal ctype define names.
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3/config/os/newlib/ctype_base.h;hb=releases/gcc-11.2.0
> 
> Yes, you were CC'd on the GCC bug slightly before Richard sent his
> email to this list:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103305#c16
> 
> > if you're talking about something else, please state so clearly.
> > 
> > > The GNU sim code should not be using reserved names (those starting _)
> > > in normal source code.  Such names are reserved to the implementation.
> > 
> > that's not really a good reason to go pooping all over the namespace.
> > 
> > we can maintain backwards compat here for C++ code fairly easily:
> 
> Yes, or only do that for GCC < 12, as I suggested in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103305#c19
> 
> #if defined(__GNUC__) && defined(__cplusplus)
> # if __GNUC__ < 12
> 
> The libstdc++ code on trunk uses the new _ISupper names.
> 
> I have no opinion on how long you should keep such backwards
> compatibility around. Whatever time limit you set, at some point it
> will make a new newlib release unusable with past G++ versions.

Is there a good reason to revert these patches in newlib?  I see the
problem but I'm unclear on how problematic the change is in real life.


Thanks,
Corinna