> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf <[email protected]>
>
> > I still think this should be investigated deeper. Matthew did a bit
> > of digging jusdging from:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=129783295016631&w=2
> >
> > That raises the question what difference between the prototypes makes
> > clang++ barf. If it is only thye missing restrict qualifiers, we
> > should add those to our prototypes.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the #defines that get removed by the diff do
> > serve a purpose. Without them, compiling
> >
> > #include <cstdio>
> >
> > with
> >
> > g++ -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=199309
> >
> > will fail.
> >
> >
>
> Hmm, okay. Adding __restrict to the prototypes in stdio.h and
> s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio gets rid of some errors, but not all
> of them. So there still seems to be some difference it doesn't like,
> but apparently, I'm totally blind as to which one.
The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary.
The remaining conflict could be due to the __attribute__ stuff.
That'd be unfortunate, and I'd say that'd be a bug in clang++. It'd
be nice if you could check that. Easiest way would probably be to compile
a simple bit of test code like:
extern "C" int foo(const char *, ...) __attribute__((__format__(printf, 1, 2));
extern "C" int (foo)(const char *, ...);
namespace bar {
using ::foo;
}
and see if clang++ warns about that.
If clang++ really is stumbling over the __attribute__ stuff, perhaps
the right thing to do would be to remove the XXX_CHECK defines, but
leave the XXX_DYNAMIC defines. That'd still prevent the g++ failure I
mentioned above.
