On 8 November 2013 10:29, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> On 04/11/2013 02:04 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>> I would have expected that somebody would tell me that omitting ::tmpnam
>>> violates 27.9.2 <cstdio> from the spec but noone yelled at me yet?
std::tmpnam, like std::gets, should be killed with fire. If a target C
library doesn't provide it then I have no problem is libstdc++ doesn't
provide it either.
> Attaching an updated patch that i was using since March (without
> regressions) which takes Rainer's comments about _GLIBCXX_USE_TMPNAM
> into account.
> Ok for trunk?
Thanks for following this up.
I'm curious why you use tmpnam("NULL") rather than tmpnam(NULL) or
tmpnam("something")? Using the string literal "NULL" is a bit
confusing (although not a problem.)
How does __UCLIBC_SUSV4_LEGACY__ get defined? We'd have a problem if
users defined that at configure time but not later when using the
library.
