Re: Hide non-standard itoa/utoa() in stdlib.h or drop these functions?

[brian.inglis@systematicsw.ab.ca]

On 2024-01-24 04:16, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 24 10:42, Christian Franke wrote:
>> brian.inglis@systematicsw.ab.ca wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-23 02:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Jan 22 19:46, Christian Franke wrote:
>>>>> The functions itoa() and utoa() are non-standard, not exported
>>>>> by Cygwin and
>>>>> also unavailable on FreeBSD and Linux (glibc and musl libc).
>>>>> Busybox for
>>>>> example could not be build OOTB using newlib's stdlib.h because
>>>>> there are
>>>>> conflicts with local functions with same names but different
>>>>> signatures.
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Does anybody actually *need* itoa/utoa as long as we have __itoa/__utoa?
>>>
>>> Unix 1st ed Manual defined itoa as did K&R on p60 (/p64 2ed); at least
>>> IBM and QNX and "some compilers" provide itoa and others:
>>>
>>>      https://cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/itoa/
>>>
>>> other libraries also provide {,u}{,l}ltoa.
>>
>> This page suggests that at least the K&R version was different (no radix
>> parameter):
>> https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C_Programming/stdlib.h/itoa
> 
> Also, the fact that it has been mentioned in K&R was apparently no
> incentive to standarize it later on.  That's why its existence on
> various systems is a bit erratic.
> 
>>> Newlib provided the function and man pages, which should be updated to
>>> reflect the changed situation, as they will have been used, and users
>>> will want to know what happened and what to do e.g. use prefixed
>>> functions, #define, sprintf(3), etc.
> 
> Mind, I never said to remove the underscored functins.  So the
> functionality still exists, it's just called __foo instead of foo.
> 
>>> Downstream systems should note the change in their lists of supported
>>> functions, and in their release notes.
> 
> We don't have any influence on downstream, but if downstream wants the
> API, it's easy to provide it by aliasing foo to __foo in a downstream
> header.

We do have some - Cygwin, RTEMS - others should note!

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer     but when there is no more to cut
                                 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry