This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [C++ Patch] Define __cplusplus == 201300L for -std=c++1y

2013/4/26 Daniel Krügler <>:
> 2013/4/26 Paolo Carlini <>:
>> Hi,
>> On 04/26/2013 12:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32:40PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>> On 04/24/2013 08:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>> On 04/24/2013 02:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>>>> +#if __cplusplus < 201300L
>>>>> Don't test for this value.  Use <= 201103L instead.
>>>>> OK with that change.
>>>> Thanks Jason.
>>>> Today I'm noticing an issue with the underlying <stdio> from glibc,
>>>> which makes our <cstdio> unusable. It does have:
>>>> #if !defined __USE_ISOC11 \
>>>>      || (defined __cplusplus && __cplusplus <= 201103L)
>>>> /* Get a newline-terminated string from stdin, removing the newline.
>>>>     DO NOT USE THIS FUNCTION!!  There is no limit on how much it will
>>>> read.
>>>>     The function has been officially removed in ISO C11.  This
>>>> opportunity
>>>>     is used to also remove it from the GNU feature list.  It is now only
>>>>     available when explicitly using an old ISO C, Unix, or POSIX
>>>> standard.
>>>>     GCC defines _GNU_SOURCE when building C++ code and the function is
>>>> still
>>>>     in C++11, so it is also available for C++.
>>>>     This function is a possible cancellation point and therefore not
>>>>     marked with __THROW.  */
>>>> extern char *gets (char *__s) __wur __attribute_deprecated__;
>>>> I don't think the header should check __cplusplus <= 201103L like
>>>> that. Jakub, Jason, what do you think?
>>> I guess Ulrich added this with the expectation that gets will be also
>>> removed from C++1y.  Has there been any discussions regarding that in the
>>> WG
>>> already?
>> Not to my best knowledge. I'm adding in CC Jonathan and Daniel too.
>> We could certainly mirror in the C++ library what glibc does, but at this
>> point it seems premature to me to assume that C++1y (C++14, in practice)
>> will be stricter than C++11 as regards gets.
> Jonathan recently submitted an LWG issue for this (not yet part of the
> available list). I'm in the process to add the new issue within the
> following days. He's essentially suggesting to remove get() from
> C++14.

To clarify this: The C++ Standard currently refers to a get() function
that does not exist anymore in the reference C99. So, its removal
looks more than reasonable to me.

> - Daniel
>> Paolo.

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