X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:08:44 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: DJGPP v2.05: some thoughts
In-reply-to: <55712D17.2040205@iki.fi>
X-012-Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <83k2vipr7n.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <55673F0B DOT 1090103 AT iki DOT fi> <83twuwwshg DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <55675040 DOT 9030008 AT iki DOT fi> <556F6E49 DOT 8010006 AT gmx DOT de> <556FCCDF DOT 7080005 AT iki DOT fi> <83bngvr0ef DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <557078B1 DOT 9040004 AT iki DOT fi> <201506041613 DOT t54GDT8m014488 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <5570B1F7 DOT 1070509 AT iki DOT fi> <201506042022 DOT t54KMxkJ024069 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <55712D17 DOT 2040205 AT iki DOT fi>
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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 08:01:11 +0300
> From: "Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> On 06/04/2015 11:22 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Hmmm... either our headers need to be updated to newer ANSI versions
> > (should we be exporting more symbols now?) or libstdc++ is making
> > assumptions they're not telling us about (we'd need to test for those
> > assumptions, not __cplusplus in general).
> >
> libstdc++ uses these macros unconditionally. So perhaps there is no other quick way as my earlier 
> patch for now.
> Run some script (under Linux) to check whether there are other similar problems after patching errno.h
> 
> Script compiled header files in similar way using -std=c++03 ,-c++11 and c++14. I ignored failures 
> for which also similar Linux compile fails (like c++11 required). Fedora 22 has gcc-5.1 as system 
> compiler so that fits nicely for testing.
> 
> The results: no more unexpected failures after patching errno.h (some parts of libstdc++ depends on 
> other stuff and as result fails)
> 
> So I'll applying patch unless there are objections

Please apply it only conditioned by __cplusplus, and please make sure
no errno macros that are NOT defined by the C++11 draft standard are
defined by errno.h when both __cplusplus and __STRICT_ANSI__ are
defined.

IOW, we still want to be compatible to ANSI standards, even though
they changed since v2.03.

Thanks.