This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] libstdc++-v3: ::tmpnam depends on uClibc SUSV4_LEGACY


On 5 April 2013 11:23, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>>> Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/c_global/cstdio
>>>>>> b/libstdc++-v3/include/c_global/cstdio
>>>>>> index fcbec0c..037a668 100644
>>>>>> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/c_global/cstdio
>>>>>> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/c_global/cstdio
>>>>>> @@ -131,7 +131,9 @@ namespace std
>>>>>>    using ::sprintf;
>>>>>>    using ::sscanf;
>>>>>>    using ::tmpfile;
>>>>>> +#if !defined __UCLIBC__ || defined __UCLIBC_SUSV4_LEGACY__
>>>>>>    using ::tmpnam;
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>    using ::ungetc;
>>>>>>    using ::vfprintf;
>>>>>>    using ::vprintf;
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 1.7.10.4
>> b>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Do we really want to use target-specific macros directly instead of
>>>> defining something more abstract either via a configure test or a define
>>>> in config/os/uclibc?
>>>>
>>>>         Rainer
>>>
>>> What would your suggestion for defineingsomething more abstract that reliably
>>> says whether the feature is deprecated or absent?
>>
>> It seems _GLIBCXX_USE_TMPNAM would be in line with the other macros I
>> see.  Than either configure could test if tmpnam() is available without
>> special additional macros or config/os/uclibc/os_config.h could define
>> it to 0, with a default of 1 (best decided by the libstdc++
>> maintainers).
>>
>> The configure route seems cleaner to me, especially given that
>> Bernhard's rationale for uClibc no longer providing it by default
>> suggests that other systems might follow in the foreseeable future.

> sounds reasonable; Bernhard, would you mind amending your patch in
> that direction?

I'll have a look.
Thanks,


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