From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 591FC3858D20 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:56:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 591FC3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 591FC3858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706532979; cv=none; b=KTNnF/UIIX7p/1mHAFEaxgvfpH3IwnQxFkJY61J6mQm/nAchp0cN2vW0TWecJ3YsLHKXG4IQTs1hk0R3IVsvWROQa10Ae9ME9lJdnT9OYqRvJS75+3383e4CbXkVogfJ5++Md7WEEK+udZfxPiQbMopxSDX73TvCd748ccjrumg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706532979; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qmAGP4BvvM7ExDSWbTcLDj3E9tcK4ZEQHsH2StI89+8=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=UEvf9gQHL2oot2CruOYxVAN6WaLhGQRU21MZVKf/E7n4qtPLXKMaGO5NPcDL8kWw9BLsXxnm+0H8SaV3j/hcohle7Wu/B+qlWcOoteBADyRyrx18aljq4PY/xFcBd4jSCfqscBZf2H77gp+iQ6JP0UxwrbDympGcc9D6DzcNhWE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1706532976; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=vEE/6ghELiNjN90TEnmQf242kiD4EK5rsEILns36sFk=; b=UB/k9wItHdwFHt8Jtnx0UeN+G/j6GTDBNaNMAlAOYbvmbZfby0qvp4YmIcfOS0VbiDxiB/ OVVJuRpS9LGotruLZUBYmKc+RLipaFm2/qYMnKKpC2DezDIhp0L1CJOSdvOdHml8D0/ArN ZSrsF56vYFsTVAw+d2G5Jy4wgRBn6Gw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-679-wdrjEUTpNx-mVp6AAzwHog-1; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:56:13 -0500 X-MC-Unique: wdrjEUTpNx-mVp6AAzwHog-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C042687B2A3; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from calimero.vinschen.de (unknown [10.39.192.49]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 839F540C95AD; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 787D2A80A59; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:56:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:56:11 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Christian Franke Cc: newlib@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Hide non-standard itoa/utoa() in stdlib.h or drop these functions? Message-ID: Reply-To: newlib@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: Christian Franke , newlib@sourceware.org References: <83962310-aec8-a718-bafb-6e10703693b8@t-online.de> <90bedd49-bed9-0c6d-fd89-a94241b0dd4f@t-online.de> <0cbff769-04c0-210b-e832-9886fb252da6@t-online.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0cbff769-04c0-210b-e832-9886fb252da6@t-online.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.2 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Jan 28 13:52, Christian Franke wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > Does anybody actually *need* itoa/utoa as long as we have __itoa/__utoa? > > > > [...] > > The problem is that _GNU_SOURCE got synonymous for "everything and the > > kitchen sink", and there's no blessed way around that other than > > defining another source standard instead. > > My interpretation was "everything and the kitchen sink - except everything > never provided by glibc or Linux" :-) > > > Do we really want to create our own kind of "this is > > non-standard"-standard? > > > > That would be something like __NEWLIB_VISIBLE / _NEWLIB_SOURCE. > > > > But, then again, for just two seldom used APIs? > > The API is seldom used, possibly not or no longer well known and definitely > unavailable in widely used other C libs. This increases the risk of a > conflict with local functions with the same name. Busybox is a real world > example. I never doubted that. My question is NOT how we can keep itoa/utoa alive and striving. I think we have really only two ways of going forward: #if __CYGWIN__'ize itoa/utoa prototypes in stdlib.h, but DO NOT #if __CYGWIN__'ize __itoa/__utoa, because they are living in reserved namespace anyway or drop the definitions of itoa/utoa from itoa.c and utoa.c, drop the prototypes from stdlib.h, but NEITHER drop __itoa/__utoa from the source files NOR drop their prototypes. I favor the second approach, but if we can't get this sorted out within the next two days, we'll go ahead with the first approach. Corinna