Eric Lammerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I meant was: you don't have your own stdio.h. You're using the
> one from the system (printf.c does #include <stdio.h> and there is no
> stdio.h in the cdrtools package).
>
> I think it would make more sense for you to write your own
> (minimalist) stdio.h file. It would match your own stdio perfectly,
> and you wouldn't have the gcc 3.0 problems at all.
I don't have a copy of the standard at all handy, but at the time I
left X3J11 there was wording to the effect that if you use a system
header file you may not define your own version of any of the procedures
for which it has prototype. Worded better than that, of course.
As a general portability thing I would not call my procedures by the
same name as the system stuff, just to avoid problems like this. That
way I don't hve to fight with name clashes and anyone's idea of what
should be done.
That said, your idea has merit, although I wouldn't trust an
implementation to avoid being smart and still doing something
unexpected. It would assure portability, and protect against changes in
the definition of printf and friends at some future time.
Does someone have a pointer to the latest adopted and draft standards?
--
-bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
