> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100 > From: Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> > > > I still think this should be investigated deeper. Matthew did a bit > > of digging jusdging from: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=129783295016631&w=2 > > > > That raises the question what difference between the prototypes makes > > clang++ barf. If it is only thye missing restrict qualifiers, we > > should add those to our prototypes. > > > > As far as I can tell, the #defines that get removed by the diff do > > serve a purpose. Without them, compiling > > > > #include <cstdio> > > > > with > > > > g++ -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=199309 > > > > will fail. > > > > > > Hmm, okay. Adding __restrict to the prototypes in stdio.h and > s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio gets rid of some errors, but not all > of them. So there still seems to be some difference it doesn't like, > but apparently, I'm totally blind as to which one.
The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary. The remaining conflict could be due to the __attribute__ stuff. That'd be unfortunate, and I'd say that'd be a bug in clang++. It'd be nice if you could check that. Easiest way would probably be to compile a simple bit of test code like: extern "C" int foo(const char *, ...) __attribute__((__format__(printf, 1, 2)); extern "C" int (foo)(const char *, ...); namespace bar { using ::foo; } and see if clang++ warns about that. If clang++ really is stumbling over the __attribute__ stuff, perhaps the right thing to do would be to remove the XXX_CHECK defines, but leave the XXX_DYNAMIC defines. That'd still prevent the g++ failure I mentioned above.