[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/5] obstack tidy
From: |
Alan Modra |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/5] obstack tidy |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:01:50 +0930 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > a) Delete nonsense about "not polluting the namespace with stddef.h
> > symbols" since string.h includes stddef.h a little later anyway.
>
> If you are talking specifically about the glibc implementation's string.h,
> then you are confused.
No, I was talking about gnulib's string.h.
> glibc's string.h complies with the C and POSIX
> standards, and so does not pollute the namespace with all of stddef.h's
> names. It only defines size_t and NULL via stddef.h. If you also want
> ptrdiff_t for use in obstack.h, with GCC's stddef.h you can do:
> #define __need_ptrdiff_t
> #include <stddef.h>
>
> That said, I don't think anybody actually cares about a GNU extension
> header like obstack.h implicitly defining common standard C symbols like
> that ones that stddef.h defines.
Right.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Re: [PATCH 5/5] obstack usability, Paul Eggert, 2014/07/26
[PATCH 4/5] 64-bit obstack support, part 3, Alan Modra, 2014/07/26
[PATCH 2/5] 64-bit obstack support, part 1, Alan Modra, 2014/07/26