X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4F7C89D3.2070803@cs.utoronto.ca>
Date:	Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:50:11 -0400
From:	Ryan Johnson <ryan DOT johnson AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: snprintf() with g++ -std=c++98: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope
References:	<20120404133244 DOT GA2056 AT qp9482> <4F7C5470 DOT 3070805 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <20120404145445 DOT GA1548 AT qp9482> <20120404151837 DOT GA11484 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20120404151837.GA11484@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On 04/04/2012 11:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr  4 16:54, Denis Excoffier wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:02:24AM -0400, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/2012 9:32 AM, Denis Excoffier wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be that snprintf() is not properly declared in<stdio.h>.
>>>> According to [1], it's not officially part of c++98 (???). Try
>>>> gnu++98 instead. As for why it's not in c++0x, there's a problem
>>>> with the macros being defined [2] that AFAIK remains unresolved;
>>>> again the workaround is gnu++0x.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-01/msg00791.html
>>>> [2] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-08/msg00311.html
>>>>
>> Oh, i should have found these, at least the first one... For c++0x,
>> couldn't this be addressed now? As a start, i can (humbly) propose:
>>
>> --- stdio.h	2012-04-04 14:50:32.000000000 +0159
>> +++ stdio.h++	2012-04-04 16:38:21.049273700 +0159
>> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@
>>   off_t	_EXFUN(ftello, ( FILE *));
>>   #endif
>>   #endif
>> -#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || (__STDC_VERSION__>= 199901L)
>> +#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || (__STDC_VERSION__>= 199901L) || (__cplusplus>= 201103L)
> How is that supposed to work?
>
>    $ gcc -xc++ -std=c++98 -dM -E -<  /dev/null | grep cplus
>    #define __cplusplus 1
>
>    $ gcc -xc++ -std=c++0x -dM -E -<  /dev/null | grep cplus
>    #define __cplusplus 1
>
> Actually I'm wondering if that's not a bug in gcc:
>
>    $ gcc -xc -std=c89 -dM -E -<  /dev/null | grep STDC
>    #define __STDC_HOSTED__ 1
>    #define __STDC__ 1
>
>    $ gcc -xc -std=c99 -dM -E -<  /dev/null | grep STDC
>    #define __STDC_HOSTED__ 1
>    #define __STDC_VERSION__ 199901L
>    #define __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ 1
>    #define __STDC__ 1
>
>    [~]$ gcc -xc++ -std=c++98 -dM -E -<  /dev/null | grep STDC
>    #define __STDC_HOSTED__ 1
>    #define __STDC__ 1
>    [~]$ gcc -xc++ -std=c++0x -dM -E -<  /dev/null | grep STDC
>    #define __STDC_HOSTED__ 1
>    #define __STDC__ 1
>
> Shouldn't -std=c++0x include the definitions for -std=c99, namely
>
>    #define __STDC_VERSION__ 199901L
>
> ???
I figured it was a gcc bug from the start, but I don't know enough about 
the arcane art of juggling all possible combinations of __STDC__, 
__ANSI__, etc. and wouldn't know the first thing about a fix. I just 
live with -std=gnu++$WHATEVER for now.

Ryan


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -