Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:04:16 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Stefan Farfeleder <stefanf@FreeBSD.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r227487 - head/include Message-ID: <3B8C1412-E18D-47E3-A09D-4847DD078963@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111114180235.GA58284@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <201111131618.pADGIm2n099696@svn.freebsd.org> <20111114082129.GA1596@mole.fafoe.narf.at> <4EC0E6C2.4010509@FreeBSD.org> <20111114180235.GA58284@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:02, David Schultz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 2011-11-14 09:21, Stefan Farfeleder wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 04:18:48PM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: >>>> Author: theraven >>>> Date: Sun Nov 13 16:18:48 2011 >>>> New Revision: 227487 >>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227487 >>>>=20 >>>> Log: >>>> The spec says that FILE must be defined in wchar.h, but it wasn't. = It >>>> is now. Also hide some macros in C++ mode that will break C++ >>>> namespaced calls. >>>>=20 >>>> Approved by: dim (mentor) >>>=20 >>> I think this change is wrong. Whic spec are you referring to? C99 >>> defines FILE only in 7.19.1#2 (stdio.h). In other headers FILE is = used >>> as parameter type for functions but that does not mean it is = exported to >>> user space. >>=20 >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/wchar.h.html >=20 > It's a niggling detail, but that's an extension to the C standard, > so properly speaking, it belongs in an > #if __POSIX_VISIBLE >=3D 200809 || XSI_VISIBLE > (or something like that). The formals were struct __sFILE * > instead of FILE * for that reason -- see r103177. >=20 > P.S. You're looking at a very old version of POSIX. Check out: > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ The C99 and C1x specifications both seem to require stdio.h to be = included before wchar.h. I think this therefore places including = wchar.h and not stdio.h in the category of undefined (or, at least, not = defined) behaviour, so we are free to do anything in this case. I would = say that accepting the code and working as the programmer expected is = the least harmful thing to do here. This is what Darwin libc does = (actually, it #includes stdio.h in wchar.h). =20 David=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B8C1412-E18D-47E3-A09D-4847DD078963>