Dan Kegel writes: > Guess I have egg all over my face. The _IO_ thing appears > to be very public. What would be the best forum for asking > why glibc uses this convention? Seems kind of strange that > C programs compiled against glibc use _IO_putc instead of > putc; doesn't that violate existing ABI's > (e.g. SysV http://www.sco.com/developer/devspecs/gabi41.pdf )?
I don't see how the expansion of putc() to _IO_putc() is conceptually any different from the SysV expansion of putc() to an expression involving a call to __flsbuf, which is indeed listed in that PDF. Implementing putc and getc as macros with bits of libc internals in them seems to be extremely common. ttfn/rjk
