https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jay Feldblum from comment #7) > The caveat, not to pollute `bits/c++config` with `#include </* anything, > really */>`. Are there more caveats to be aware of? No, that's it. The additional overhead of calling a function defined in the library is not a problem, because we're aborting anyway. > > The suggestion, to export a helper routine that would work like `printf` but > emit to stderr. I can't tell whether that's a strong or weak preference. The > patch I went with - exporting a helper routine that returns the value of > `stderr` - is a bit smaller. But if that's not the preference then I can > change the patch. That seems OK. Another option would be to export the existing __snprintf_lite function and print into a buffer, then use ::write(2, ...) to output that. Either way requires adding a new export to the library. Using write has some other advantages, but means polluting the namespace (and isn't available on all targets) which isn't a problem with __builtin_printf or __builtin_fprintf. > Beyond the question of what helper routine to add, there is where to add it. > I cam e up with a guess but perhaps a better place will be suggested. src/c++98/compatibility.cc is definitely wrong, that's for symbols that are only retained for backwards compatibility with previous releases. Not for new symbols for new features. Patches should be sent to the libstdc++ and gcc-patches mailing lists for review though, rather than attached here. Thanks for working on this!
