On 5 April 2013 11:48, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 April 2013 11:23, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> wrote: >>> Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Rainer Orth >>>> <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: >>>>> Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@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.
Done with the configure check, looks prettier indeed, will followup once tested. I would have expected that somebody would tell me that omitting ::tmpnam violates 27.9.2 <cstdio> from the spec but noone yelled at me yet? > Thanks,