[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:20:05 +0200
From: Joakim Sindholt <opensource@...sha.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uchar.h: define char16_t and char32_t for old c++
On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> including uchar.h in c++ code is only well defined in c++11 onwards
> where char16_t and char32_t type definitions must be hidden since they
> are keywords. however some c++ code compiled for older c++ standard
> include uchar.h too and they need the typedefs, this fix makes such
> code work.
> ---
> include/uchar.h | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uchar.h b/include/uchar.h
> index 8dabf1ed..7e5c4d40 100644
> --- a/include/uchar.h
> +++ b/include/uchar.h
> @@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C" {
> -#else
> +#endif
> +
> +#if __cplusplus < 201103L
> typedef unsigned short char16_t;
> typedef unsigned char32_t;
> #endif
> --
> 2.16.3
Isn't this a bit ill advised? I just did a little test to see how GCC
mangles the names and it looks troublesome:
char16_t func(char32_t *s); becomes _Z4funcPDi when -std=c++11
and when we add
typedef unsigned short char16_t;
typedef unsigned char32_t;
and compile it with -std=c++03 it becomes _Z4funcPj
Did I do something egregiously wrong? Because this seems like a recipe
for ABI incompatibility.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
