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 EFAB83858D32 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:31:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EFAB83858D32 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 EFAB83858D32 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=1706542304; cv=none; b=pxpZLhZN/VPB6EI60XepKQcraTA4X9MwE2ex80LTO4HMKgY3U7MGitFWn76BrDUu+DXLKuV0hPpmOHPfyWeXrwc4xygNnt+S4wvUfWUyaF0OiTZVHTHb4vmowJmH4CT9chTnPNqwXdg7R2zo9QgdZon7awbIuc1Zyzp89M6dHzY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706542304; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dtZEl0HxJ9+QNUbt6Vptm68fniGhAzCudiLvbxgdHgs=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=sXMamSbH9eII1or05adguLJ/DLxYimM3HlxbCL857zA2OmSjaXj00rR8u5p2FgKLWQ+2flbvayGPDk6fWDxMj0dGW4CGeJgYDsrcWgjSR1FOQWDDREwGFX9TSVmSTaorM9U3iYNpS/gngiCVH0AY5IJL6wH3vI/478vIw+e8tcY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1706542300; 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=vrvsEUn645N2ZaP/eBsAv09yMdJyTRzgIR7LfpZVNx8=; b=KPGJIOV+j6Sk2yXPPMsKzi1nBx5XfDkbmAYySS8y4beTy16iRfENtV0qHIwS6skmEdElTl mfCIOhlZf2oF57mXq6kmC7JfhO6k1OJQUSXUsKBsKGAXAfFxEGSTfVlcb14j3iVxfJ8IAX XWUh7ttjVr92PBcyJNziUEsoqxPKYmY= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-605-qN6ONmSDN7O9aUqyx5N4aQ-1; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:31:37 -0500 X-MC-Unique: qN6ONmSDN7O9aUqyx5N4aQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (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 0FB4F28116A2; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:31:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from calimero.vinschen.de (unknown [10.39.192.49]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11FA2166B31; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:31:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id C7B8AA80CEC; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:31:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:31:35 +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> <15262111-fb6b-41a4-9da6-9533b7a98f16@t-online.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <15262111-fb6b-41a4-9da6-9533b7a98f16@t-online.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 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=-5.7 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 29 15:17, Christian Franke wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > 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 > > The DO NOT branch would only make real sense if Cygwin would provide the > __*() functions, As this is not the case, my patch disables also these > prototypes. > ... Good point. Corinna