> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:54:05 +0100 > From: Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:06:19 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100 > > > > From: Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, clang++ interprets "restrict" as parameter name, i.e.: > > > > > > > > > > > > attr.cc:1:50: error: redefinition of parameter 'restrict' > > > > > > extern "C" int foo(const char * restrict, char * restrict, ...) > > > > > > ^ > > > > > > attr.cc:1:33: note: previous declaration is here > > > > > > extern "C" int foo(const char * restrict, char * restrict, ...) > > > > > > ^ > > > > > > > > > > > > This might indeed be a bug, but I'd have to read the C++ standard > > > > > > to > > be > > > > > > sure. In pure C, clang doesn't complain. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not that surprised. restrict is C99. It's not part of C++98. > > > > > > > > > > Googling for restrict and C++ show various bug-reports explicitly > > > > > stati > > ng > > > tha > > > > > t > > > > > library headers should probably adapt. > > > > > > > > > > I don't have access to C++ 2011 yet, but from n3242, it seems that it > > > > > d > > oe > > > s > > > > > now refer to C99 instead of C89, so restrict is probably leggit in > > > > > C++2 > > 01 > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > So it looks to me like clang in C++98 mode is totally right to not > > > > > reco > > gn > > > ize > > > > > restrict as a keyword! > > > > > > > > Yes, you're right. And clang++ -std=c++0x does recognise restrict as a > > > > keyword. cstdio should be adapted (and gcc 4.6 does indeed have > > > > __restrict over restrict). > > > > > > Still worth checking if only removing the XXX_CHECK defines and > > > leaving the XXX_DYNAMIC defines helps. > > > > Yes, it does. :) Thanks! > > So ... Any oks for this diff?
ok kettenis@ > Index: os_defines.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/gnu/gcc/libstdc++-v3/config/os/bsd/openbsd/os_defines.h,v > retrieving revision 1.2 > diff -u -p -r1.2 os_defines.h > --- os_defines.h 26 May 2010 11:23:06 -0000 1.2 > +++ os_defines.h 14 Dec 2011 19:53:49 -0000 > @@ -35,11 +35,8 @@ > // file will come before all others. > > #define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 1 > -#define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_CHECK 1 > #define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_DYNAMIC (!(__ISO_C_VISIBLE >= 1999)) > -#define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_LONG_LONG_CHECK 1 > #define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_LONG_LONG_DYNAMIC (_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_DYNAMIC || > !defined __LONG_LONG_SUPPORTED) > -#define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_FLOAT_TRANSCENDENTALS_CHECK 1 > #define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_FLOAT_TRANSCENDENTALS_DYNAMIC defined _XOPEN_SOURCE > typedef __builtin_va_list __gnuc_va_list; > >
