On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 16:59, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543672.html > >> > >> I'm okay with the changes to the tests. > >> > >> The target-supports.exp changes look reasonable to me as well but > >> I can't approve them. Since you said it's for targets that don't > >> have file I/O functions I wonder if the name would better reflect > >> that if it were called, say, check_effective_target_fileio? > > > > Since tmpnam is obsolescent in SUSv4 and hence a libc is fine to omit it, > > I'd rather fix the tests to use functions that are known to stay. > > I would be okay with replacing tmpnam with something else, although > I don't think it's necessary. tmpnam is a standard C function that > conforming C (and so POSIX) implementation are required to provide.
IMO it's perfectly fine to omit obsolescent functions from a conforming implementation ¹). But one should use the recommended replacement functions either way, e.g. mkstemp ²) thanks, ¹) [OB] [Option Start] Obsolescent [Option End] The functionality described may be removed in a future version of this volume of POSIX.1-2017. Strictly Conforming POSIX Applications and Strictly Conforming XSI Applications shall not use obsolescent features. ²) https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/tmpnam.html ---8<--- APPLICATION USAGE Applications should use the tmpfile(), mkstemp(), or mkdtemp() functions instead of the obsolescent tmpnam() function. ---8<---
