2013/4/26 Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>: > 2013/4/26 Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>: >> 2013/4/26 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 04/26/2013 12:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32:40PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/24/2013 08:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/24/2013 02:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +#if __cplusplus < 201300L >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't test for this value. Use <= 201103L instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK with that change. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Jason. >>>>> >>>>> Today I'm noticing an issue with the underlying <stdio> from glibc, >>>>> which makes our <cstdio> unusable. It does have: >>>>> >>>>> #if !defined __USE_ISOC11 \ >>>>> || (defined __cplusplus && __cplusplus <= 201103L) >>>>> /* Get a newline-terminated string from stdin, removing the newline. >>>>> DO NOT USE THIS FUNCTION!! There is no limit on how much it will >>>>> read. >>>>> >>>>> The function has been officially removed in ISO C11. This >>>>> opportunity >>>>> is used to also remove it from the GNU feature list. It is now only >>>>> available when explicitly using an old ISO C, Unix, or POSIX >>>>> standard. >>>>> GCC defines _GNU_SOURCE when building C++ code and the function is >>>>> still >>>>> in C++11, so it is also available for C++. >>>>> >>>>> This function is a possible cancellation point and therefore not >>>>> marked with __THROW. */ >>>>> extern char *gets (char *__s) __wur __attribute_deprecated__; >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the header should check __cplusplus <= 201103L like >>>>> that. Jakub, Jason, what do you think? >>>> >>>> I guess Ulrich added this with the expectation that gets will be also >>>> removed from C++1y. Has there been any discussions regarding that in the >>>> WG >>>> already? >>> >>> Not to my best knowledge. I'm adding in CC Jonathan and Daniel too. >>> >>> We could certainly mirror in the C++ library what glibc does, but at this >>> point it seems premature to me to assume that C++1y (C++14, in practice) >>> will be stricter than C++11 as regards gets. >> >> Jonathan recently submitted an LWG issue for this (not yet part of the >> available list). I'm in the process to add the new issue within the >> following days. He's essentially suggesting to remove get() from >> C++14. > > To clarify this: The C++ Standard currently refers to a get() function > that does not exist anymore in the reference C99. So, its removal > looks more than reasonable to me.
Sorry, I need to correct me here: gets() is part of C99 TC3, but has been deprecated. >> - Daniel >> >>> Paolo.
