Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:57:48 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: putc_unlocked in stdio.h but not in libs (1.3.11-3)
Message-ID:	<20020703165748.GM24177@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<3D23052F DOT 3020407 AT perathoner DOT de> <02b501c222a2$c8b9c7a0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <3D23221E DOT 4090105 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3D23221E.4090105@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 12:11:10PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>It does appear that the newlib folks have been adding LOTS of new 
>functions recently, without appropriate guards in the header files. 
>They are assuming that "if it goes into libc.a or libm.a, then it WILL 
>be available to programs that link in -lc or -lm".
>
>Not an unreasonable assumption in general, but I *think* they used to be 
>more careful about cygwinisms: where the above assumption is NOT true. 

I think I usually have to remind them, actually.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -