Fwiw, if you ever here me gripe about the C++ committee’s poor record of messing around in the C headers with detrimental effects, this is what I’m referring to. Yes, the C++ signatures are superior. No, this wasn’t a good thing to do. The C++ committee should not try to change or delete stuff in the C headers. Instead the C++ committee should provide superior alternatives in C++-owned headers.
To be clear, my comment is not about Richard’s fine patch. It is about the C++ committee’s decades old mistake of trying to change C headers. I am being noisy in the hopes that it helps us (the C++ committee) never again repeat this mistake. Howard On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:32 PM, Richard Smith via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > Ping. > > Sorry about that. > Completely missed this in my email flood. > > This approach looks ok to me, but I wonder if it would be better to get Apple > to fix their iOS C library instead. > > Well, it's not broken in the sense that it does what the C standard library > is supposed to do. But it's not providing the "C pieces" of a C++ standard > library. I don't know what its design goal is here, but with this patch we > don't need to care. > > Duncan offered to file a bug on this, but I don't know if that's happened. > > Are there other broken C libraries that we are concerned with? > > Probably :) I don't know the complete set of C standard library > implementations that people use with libc++, but I'd be surprised if Darwin > were the only case we need to fix. > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits