From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30850 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2011 17:44:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 30842 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2011 17:44:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from us01smtp3.synopsys.com (HELO hermes.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:44:39 +0000 Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23]) by hermes.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1705C4ACC; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godel.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA07788; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godel.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by godel.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id p6LHictE013012; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:44:38 -0700 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by godel.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id p6LHiTFv013011; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:44:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:13:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Diogo Sousa , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C99 Status - inttypes.h Message-ID: <20110721174429.GB12907@synopsys.com> References: <4E283680.7040704@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:30:16AM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Diogo Sousa wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I checked the "library functions in " item in c99status > > (marked as "Library Issue") [http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html], and it > > seems that glibc implements everything the standard demands. > > > > Am I missing something or is this outdated? If so, where can I find more > > information about it? > > "Library Issue" simply means it's not GCC's resposibility; it says nothing > about the state in any particular library that may be used with GCC. But readers will focus on the word "Issue" here and think that there is something missing. Perhaps there should be a footnote explaining that glibc/eglibc has the needed support, but that other libraries might not.