Moving C11 Functions from winsup to newlib

[Brian Inglis]

On 2025-03-17 13:20, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 1:18 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com 
> <mailto:vinschen@redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Mar 17 09:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>      > Thanks. Sounds like moving the uchar.h file is a good idea. But newlib will
>      > need its
>      > own more flexible implementation.
> 
>     Exactly.
> 
>      > What about the C11 function timespec_get? Cygwin has the obvious
>      > implementation. Should that just go in time/?

Are Cygwin implementations not LGPL-3.0-or-later (with linking exception - 
irrelevant here)?

	https://cygwin.com/licensing.html

	https://cygwin.com/COPYING.LIB

>     Sure, no worries.  However, not yet.  We're working on the Cygwin 3.6
>     release, and I would prefer if we do a function and header reshuffle
>     only after we cut the 3.6 branch.
> 
> 
> Gotcha. This is preparing for potential Google Summer of Code work.
> These looked to be the easiest to address.
> 
> For RTEMS, I'd rather see the new POSIX Issue 8 methods like
> pthread_mutex_clocklock()  get added but ultimately, we want better
> C11 support also.
> 
> Any thoughts on the Annex K optional Bounds-checking interfaces?
> I haven't done a lot of research on implementations but there is this
> one: https://github.com/sbaresearch/slibc <https://github.com/sbaresearch/slibc>
That appears to be L/GPL not BSD!

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retrancher  but when there is no more to cut
                                 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry