X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:56:01 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: __STRICT_ANSI__ and errno.h definitions [WAS: Re: DJGPP v2.05: some thoughts]
In-reply-to:	<5572D93B.3030505@iki.fi>
X-012-Sender:	halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-id:	<83zj4dm4oe.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 delorie DOT com> <5570B1F7 DOT 1070509 AT iki DOT fi> <83pp5aprqw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <mks4nl$1o8$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org> <834mmmp7f0 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <mksolp$uta$1 AT dont-email DOT me> <83zj4enfns DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <55727FED DOT 7060509 AT iki DOT fi> <83d219nwlo DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <5572D93B DOT 3030505 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

> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:27:55 +0300
> From: "Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> On 06/06/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:06:53 +0300
> >> From: "Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> >>
> >> As the result I would vote for removal of excluding additional macros when __STRICT_ANSI__ is defined.
> > What about -pedantic -- do we still want it to flag any symbols that
> > are not in the standard?
> >
> >
> They do not get flagged dor Linux or Mingw (as far as I checked with Linux to Mingw 
> cross-compiler). Do we really need to be more pedantic? (especially with our limited resources)

I asked a question to solicit opinions; I don't have an answer or a
solid opinion of my own.

But in any case, MinGW is not an example to learn from in this case.
The only goal of MinGW headers is to be compatible with the Microsoft
runtime, and allow building of native Windows programs that use that
runtime.  That's all they strive to do.  (Where the Microsoft runtime
deviates from accepted standards in preposterous ways, like in printf
family of functions, MinGW provides its own replacements, but those
replacements have distinctly different names.)

What you call "Linux" (and is actually the GNU libc, or "glibc"),
OTOH, _is_ an example to learn from, because ANSI- and
Posix-compliance (with a heavy bias towards Posix) are their explicit
goals.

- Raw text -