Date:	Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:53:30 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Bug in DJGPP 2.03 (with GCC 3.1)
In-Reply-To:	<10207222257.AA27589@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1020723075029.28370B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu wrote:

> > tanhf and the other functions listed became part of the C standard in C99. But
> > DJGPP doesn't support C99 yet. These functions are in the non-standard section
> > of <math.h> and are therefore unavailable, when you use the -ansi option.
> > (Look for the #ifndef __STRICT_ANSI__, #ifndef _POSIX_SOURCE lines.)
> > 
> > I suspect that gcc 2.95.3 didn't have std::tanhf and the others, so this
> > problem did not arise.
> 
> So this means that 2.03 is incompatible with gcc 3.x with -ansi ?

Yes.

> Should we consider a header change for 2.03 refresh to fix?  Or is it 
> more complicated?

There are other headers, besides math.h, which have the same problem: 
functions standardized by C99 have their prototypes masked under -ansi.  
If we decide to fix math.h, we should fix the other headers as well.

I don't know what should the compiler do if invoked with -c89 (sp?) 
switch, though?  Should it omit the prototypes of functions that were 
non-standard in C89?  Does that interact in some way with -ansi?  If we 
need to do something else about these cases, the fix might be more 
complicated than just moving some prototypes.

- Raw text -