This is the mail archive of the newlib@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the newlib project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

libstc++ expectations for newlib's string.h


Hi,

At Jeff Johnston's request, I am asking this on the libstdc++ mailing
list.
This problem arose when compiling the file bits/locale_facets.tcc with 
gcc 3.2 on an embedded target (rtems) that uses newlib.  newlib's
string.h
protects strdup() and some other routines with !__STRICT_ANSI__ yet they
seem to be assumed to be prototyped by C++ code and, in fact, are
prototyped
by the glibc string.h on RedHat 7.3 for C++ whether -ansi is specified
or not.  

As noted at the bottom, Jeff believes that some of the tests in newlib 
which are now on !__STRICT_ANSI__ should also be "or C++".

The full thread is below.  We would appreciate it very much if someone
with more C++ expertise could provide guidance in what is expected
of the C library so we can fix newlib.

Thanks.

--joel

"J. Johnston" wrote:
> 
> Eric Norum wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 22, 2002, at 10:57 AM, Joel Sherrill
> > <joel@OARcorp.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Eric Norum ran across a problem some libstdc++-v3 code in gcc 3.2
> > > which compiles native but doesn't with newlib because of a minor
> > > difference in the two string.h implementations.  I don't know whether
> > > this is a bug in newlib or not and wanted comments:
> > >
> > > The file:
> > >
> > > #include <string.h>
> > >
> > > int f(char *c1) {
> > >   char *c;
> > >   c=strdup(c1);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > I'd just like to add that the problem shows up in the C++ header
> > bits/locale_facets.tcc which uses strdup.  This makes it impossible to
> > compile some otherwise-valid C++ programs with -ansi and the newlib
> > headers.
> >
> > --
> 
> The -ansi flag is defined as follows:
> 
> `-ansi'
>      In C mode, support all ANSI standard C programs.  In C++ mode,
>      remove GNU extensions that conflict with ISO C++.
> 
> Thus, we should be testing for __cplusplus in addition to __STRICT_ANSI__.  I would suggest
> that this matter be brought up on the libstdc++ forum to see what, if any, extensions
> newlib should be screening.  The tests can be modified to be:
> 
>   #if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || defined(__cplusplus)
> 
> -- Jeff J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]