X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:18:37 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: snprintf() with g++ -std=c++98: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope
Message-ID: <20120404151837.GA11484@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20120404133244 DOT GA2056 AT qp9482> <4F7C5470 DOT 3070805 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <20120404145445 DOT GA1548 AT qp9482>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120404145445.GA1548@qp9482>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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 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

???


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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