[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnulib portability issues
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: gnulib portability issues |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:19:12 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 |
On 06/12/2012 08:03 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:12:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> And this simple program proves that most libc know how to push back more
>> than one byte, whether or not they differ from the original contents,
>> and especially in the common case where the byte still fits in the
>> buffer. It's the corner case where the bytes being pushed back differ
>> from the backing store, and where they don't fit in the normal buffer
>> (perhaps because you have used setvbuf or friends), and therefore libc
>> has to malloc() some pushback storage, and if the malloc fails then so
>> does the ungetc().
>
> This is where we (musl vs glibc and perhaps you) have very different
> design philosophies. Using a single non-switchable buffer simplifies
> all the stdio code paths a lot, and reduces the cost of unget/get
> cycles. I wouldn't look fondly on changing this for the sake of
> supporting something that the standard says applications can't rely
> upon.
We're talking past each other. I never said that ungetc() should
support more than one pushback byte, only that most libc implementations
already do support it as an extension. I fully agree with the current
standards that say that at most one pushback byte is portable, and GNU
m4 goes to great lengths to comply with that. Furthermore, I claim that
musl need not go out its way to provide an extension where ungetc can be
used for more than one byte.
--
Eric Blake address@hidden +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: gnulib portability issues, (continued)
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Eric Blake, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Ben Pfaff, 2012/06/12
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Eric Blake, 2012/06/12
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/12
- Re: gnulib portability issues,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/10
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Eric Blake, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Eric Blake, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Rich Felker, 2012/06/11
- Re: gnulib portability issues, Eric Blake, 2012/06/11