This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


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

Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++


Neil Booth wrote:
> 
> Stan Shebs wrote:-
> 
> > Really?  I don't see anything in my C89 or C99 specs that suggests
> > that isalnum and friends don't need function definitions.  For one
> > thing, you can't take the address of a macro, so the standard would
> > have to say explicitly that the address of isalnum is undefined.
> 
> You could have both.  Anything with a following '(' uses the macro.
> Taking the address of the function will not have a following '(', and
> so would not be treated by CPP as a macro invocation.

Exactly, which is why I suspect that people think the standard
doesn't require that functions be available.  One of those reasons
to have testsuite, so that well-meaning people don't remove the
required bits and leave only the optimization in the headers.
(Ironically, this is correct in every other flavor of BSD that I
looked at - only NeXT/Apple managed to get this wrong, haven't
studied the version trail to find an actual miscreant though.)

Stan


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