Mark Kettenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> > Date: 15 May 2005 23:20:14 -0400 > > > Well, we require an ISO C90 compiler; do we require ISO C90 libraries? > If we require the libraries, then we can remove a number of files from > libiberty, at least atexit.c, memchr.c, memcmp.c, memcpy.c, memmove.c, > memset.c, snprintf.c, strchr.c, strerror.c, strncmp.c, strrchr.c, > strtol.c, strtoul.c, vfprintf.c, vsprintf.c. If we don't require the > libraries, then we can't assume that <string.h> declares strerror. In > fact, technically we can't even assume that <string.h> exists, > although we do currently have a few cases where it is included without > being protected by #ifdef HAVE_STRING_H. > > Hmm, it seems that snprintf() wasn't in ISO C90 since it's mentioned > as a new addition in ISO C99 according to google. At least HP-UX > 10.20 doesn't have it. And GDB still builds on vax-dec-ultrix4.0 for > which I'm not sure that it has a full ISO C90 library. So I hope > you're not seriously proposing to remove these functions from > libiberty.
I'm not. And, you're right, snprintf shouldn't be in the list anyhow. Ian
