🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mwron-0111001728290001@c243286-a.bcreek1.mi.home.com>,
MWRon <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> In article <011120000825248334%hawkfish@spam.invalid>, Richard Wesley
> <hawkfish@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>  
> >From cstdio revision 1.16.2.2.6.17:
> >
> >#ifdef _POSIX
> >__inline int fileno(__std(FILE) *stream ) {return _fileno(stream);}
> >__inline __std(FILE)* fdopen(int fildes , char* type) {return
> >_fdopen(fildes,type);}
> >
> >#endif
> >

> I'm just not getting this here, these are in the headers so if you
> include
> the header it should be fine I know you have a problem and I'm not
> trying
> to dismiss this, I just am not understanding it.  Maybe you can send me
> an
> example of this.

The current MacCVS source should show it.  <http://www.wincvs.org/>

> You can not use MSL headers to link against a different library, you
> should never expect too.  If GUSI has its own POSIX functions you need to
> use GUSI Headers and turn POSIX off in MSL Headers.   This works great. 

Here is the crux of the problem.

MW considers the MSL headers to be MSL headers.  I consider them to be
standard C headers.  MW gave them the names of the standard headers but
implemented them in such a way as they can only be used with MSL.  This
may be legal, but it is sure a pain in the neck for porting. 

The solution you propose is to use the headers for the actual library. 
That may not be possible because the library may not use its own copies
of the standard C library.  I will check on GUSI when I get a chance (I
gave up and moved on to something else) but at the moment we are all
waiting for Matthias to sort out the mess, and maybe this is what he
will do.

> > AFAICT, you
> >wind up with inlined references to _posix functions, not references to
> >the actual posix functions.  Which is the gist of my original post.
> 
> Not as far as I can tell you just end up with inlined POSIX functions, 
> The more this discussion goes on the more it looks like the new C99
> inlining is the culprit  and I think this is so much better than macro's
> that it is a great addition and long overdue.

For what it does, I can see it is better, but I think that actually
exporting the symbols would be even better.

-- 
Richard Wesley           Electric Fish, Inc.    hawkfish@NeOlSePcAtMricfish.com

"Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words.  And here they
 are:  Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" - "Harry Potter & Philospher's Stone"