X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 22:10:04 +0300
Message-Id: <83o9rzyuib.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <5980C3AA.2080305@gmx.de> (djgpp@delorie.com)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.29 uploaded.
References: <201707301540 DOT v6UFecLb017840 AT delorie DOT com> <CAA2C=vBWY7HYeu+tdO=WYN=wEmWfhLXWgH-9PtSvZkMs54rs1Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5980C3AA DOT 2080305 AT gmx DOT de>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 20:08:42 +0200
> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> Am 01.08.2017 11:06, schrieb Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
> > On 7/30/17, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via
> > djgpp-announce AT delorie DOT com]<djgpp-announce AT delorie DOT com>  wrote:
> >> This is a port of GNU binutils 2.29 to MSDOS/DJGPP.
> >
> > The bfd _doprnt patch needs submitting to binutils, if you haven't done
> > so already.
> 
> No, because I do not think that this shall be fixed in binutils.  IMO this is
> a DJGPP bug.  I do not know who has decide decades ago to declare _doprnt in
> stdio.h but now this declaration collides with the one from libiberty.

Isn't it true that symbols that begin with an underscore are "reserved
for the implementation", i.e. for the C library?  Or am I
misremembering the C Standard?

If I'm right, then libiberty has no business declaring functions with
such names.

> An inspection of my linux system and my cygwin installation shows
> that there is nothing like _doprnt in their stdio.h.

That doesn't mean anything: different implementations of the C library
have different internals.  _doprnt is not a standard function, so
looking for it in other implementations or n some relevant standards
is not recommended.