X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Received:	by 10.25.17.23 with SMTP id g23mr2040922lfi.44.1501625194623;
	Tue, 01 Aug 2017 15:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	=?UTF-8?Q?Hans-Bernhard_Br=c3=b6ker?= <HBBroeker AT t-online DOT de>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.29 uploaded.
Date:	Wed, 2 Aug 2017 00:06:23 +0200
Lines:	27
Message-ID:	<euccb9Fp555U1@mid.dfncis.de>
References:	<201707301540 DOT v6UFecLb017840 AT delorie DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vBWY7HYeu+tdO=WYN=wEmWfhLXWgH-9PtSvZkMs54rs1Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5980C3AA DOT 2080305 AT gmx DOT de> <83o9rzyuib DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news.dfncis.de JqjfZsVAPNX9BSAjRX/1jgfBni0xYPrajV5lz91Yu5Dp0xcbNHyBIjHvrR
Cancel-Lock:	sha1:IFwOR8dtAmpBjP4ujC+qQrL3W1s=
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
In-Reply-To:	<83o9rzyuib.fsf@gnu.org>
Bytes:	2432
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Am 01.08.2017 um 21:10 schrieb Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via 
djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
>> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 20:08:42 +0200
>> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>

> Isn't it true that symbols that begin with an underscore are "reserved
> for the implementation", i.e. for the C library?  Or am I
> misremembering the C Standard?

You are probably misremembering it slightly, but in effect, you're 
correct.

Only names starting with _two_ underscores, or with an underscore 
followed by a capital, are unconditionally reserved for the 
implementation (which, in the case at hand, is DJGPP libc).  But for 
file-scope names (here: a declaration of _doprint() in a header file), 
names with just a single leading underscore are also reserved.

> If I'm right, then libiberty has no business declaring functions with
> such names.

That depends on the answer to the following question: what, exactly, is 
-liberty?  Is it supplying bits and pieces of the implementation that 
are missing in the underlying libc, or is it ordinary user code?  In the 
former case it would be allowed to declare a global _doprint, otherwise not.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall -liberty intended to be the former.

- Raw text -