X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:53:02 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: missing functions Message-ID: <20070514125302.GA7978@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20070514121228 DOT GC12259 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4648549E DOT 40203 AT byu DOT net> <20070514122516 DOT GA7880 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <46485A5F DOT 6070705 AT byu DOT net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46485A5F.6070705@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Mon, May 14, 2007 at 06:47:27AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >According to Christopher Faylor on 5/14/2007 6:25 AM: >>Why do we need to export *vdprintf_r at all? Does some standard define >>it? > >Does cygwin care about providing reentrant versions of functions? >There is precedent for doing this: as an example, cygwin.din already >exports asprintf_r. That was probably one of many ill-conceived entries in cygwin.din, then. If there is no POSIX or linux version of a function there is no reason to export it. That's one reason why we stopped performing the useless task of exporting functions with leading underscores, although like asprintf_r, I'm sure that a few of these have still crept in over the years. IMO, exporting functions like this just pollutes the namespace for very very little gain. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/