Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:57:48 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.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@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <3D23052F.3020407@perathoner.de> <02b501c222a2$c8b9c7a0$6132bc3e@BABEL> <3D23221E.4090105@ece.gatech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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/