Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-11 Thread Kaz Kylheku
Christopher Faylor writes: The cygwin mailing list does not set Reply-To. It does set "Mail-Followup-To". Effectively, there is no difference. This is an idiotic header that is defined by a 1998 IETF draft that was never approved, as far as I can find. This *DEAD* draft is here: http://too

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-11 Thread Kaz Kylheku
Greg Chicares writes: An argument could be made for giving _POSIX_C_SOURCE precedence over __STRICT_ANSI__ if both are defined; but as long as that's not the The time to discuss this sort of stuff was back in 1990 or so, when it was all settled and POSIX.1 came out. (Luckily, it went your way

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:58:50PM -0700, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >Christopher Faylor writes: >> The convention in this mailing list is that you read the mailing list. >I see now from the archives that this list is configured >to generate the unfortunate Reply-to header, which by many >is considered a m

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-11 Thread Andrey Repin
Greetings, Kaz Kylheku! > I see now from the archives that this list is configured > to generate the unfortunate Reply-to header, which by many > is considered a mailing list misconfiguration. First time I hear this bullshit. Mailing lists intended for public conversation. > RFC 2822: > ``When

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-11 Thread Greg Chicares
On 2011-10-10 18:42Z, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen writes: > >> > $ gcc -Wall -ansi -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=2 posix-ansi.c > ^ >> fileno and pclose are *not* ANSI functions. Therefore, if you define >> -ansi, you get the below errors. The newlib headers have explicit >> #ifndef __STRICT

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-10 Thread Kaz Kylheku
One more thing: RFC 2822: ``When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.'' [ 3.6.2 Originator fields ] Note that the Cygwin mailing list is not the author of this message; herefore, it is abusing the Rep

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-10 Thread Kaz Kylheku
Christopher Faylor writes: The convention in this mailing list is that you read the mailing list. Hi Christopher, I see now from the archives that this list is configured to generate the unfortunate Reply-to header, which by many is considered a mailing list misconfiguration. [[ Apologies t

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-10 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:42:45AM -0700, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >Corinna Vinschen writes: > >> > $ gcc -Wall -ansi -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=2 posix-ansi.c > ^ >> fileno and pclose are *not* ANSI functions. Therefore, if you define >> -ansi, you get the below errors. The newlib headers have explicit >>

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-10 Thread Kaz Kylheku
Corinna Vinschen writes: > $ gcc -Wall -ansi -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=2 posix-ansi.c ^ fileno and pclose are *not* ANSI functions. Therefore, if you define -ansi, you get the below errors. The newlib headers have explicit #ifndef __STRICT_ANSI__ guards around the non-ANSI definitions. Hi Corin

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 9 11:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:08:58 -0700, Kaz Kylheku > wrote: > > reason, I cannot get a warning about fileno from this test case if > > I add a reference to it. I will try to produce a minimal repro test > > case for that. > > In my real program I have -Wall,

Re: stdio.h: broken standard compliance.

2011-10-09 Thread Kaz Kylheku
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:08:58 -0700, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > reason, I cannot get a warning about fileno from this test case if > I add a reference to it. I will try to produce a minimal repro test > case for that. In my real program I have -Wall, and I'm not taking the function pointers. With -Wal

Re: stdio.h

2006-05-29 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0900, Wynfield Henman wrote: >1.) Any idea of when a release of cygwin will be made of the "current >versions" contiaining the > _GNU_SOURCE to avoid collision with old-style declarations? Look at the mailing list archives and see all of the messages asking

Re: stdio.h

2006-05-29 Thread Wynfield Henman
1.) Any idea of when a release of cygwin will be made of the "current versions" contiaining the _GNU_SOURCE to avoid collision with old-style declarations? Thank you all for the assistance . Darel Henman -- On 5/27/06, Christopher Faylor On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 0

Re: stdio.h

2006-05-26 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 08:55:23AM -0700, David A. Case wrote: >On Fri, May 26, 2006, Brian Dessent wrote: >> >> 2. In current versions of Cygwin getline and getdelim are only defined >> if the user defines _GNU_SOURCE - this is the same way it's done on >> linux. > >This change doesn't seem(?) to

Re: stdio.h

2006-05-26 Thread David A. Case
On Fri, May 26, 2006, Brian Dessent wrote: > > 2. In current versions of Cygwin getline and getdelim are only defined > if the user defines _GNU_SOURCE - this is the same way it's done on > linux. This change doesn't seem(?) to be in /usr/include/sys/stdio.h from Cygwin DLL 1.5.19-4. So I think

Re: stdio.h

2006-05-26 Thread Brian Dessent
Wynfield Henman wrote: > > I have run into problems with getline being defined in stdio.h > > I understand that a GNU system has it defined there but not any other system. > > Please look into where "getline" should be defined in stdio.h or not. 1. This issue has already been thoroughly discus

RE: stdio.h

2006-05-26 Thread Dave Korn
On 26 May 2006 06:14, Wynfield Henman wrote: > I have run into problems with getline being defined in stdio.h That's a really imprecise description of the situation. Could mean anything. > I understand that a GNU system has it defined there but not any other > system. > > Please look into