Re: Issue: #include <stdio.h> shall not cause intmax_t to be defined

On May  4 10:41, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 04/05/2022 10:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On May  4 09:59, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > > On 03/05/2022 19:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > On Apr 27 00:41, Pavel M wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Issue: #include <stdio.h> shall not cause intmax_t to be defined. However,
> > > > > now it causes. This is because now <stdio.h> includes <sys/types.h>, which
> > > > > includes <sys/_stdint.h>.
> > > > > Note: per C11 the types intmax_t and uintmax_t defined in the header
> > > > > <stdint.h>, and <stdint.h> is not included in <stdio.h>.
> > > > > Consider fixing.
> > > > I pushed a patch to fix this.
> > > In FreeBSD, <sys/types.h> provides the stdint.h types. Could we bring back
> > > this with
> > Is that with FreeeBSD only, or is that with BSDs in general?
> 
> It seems to be a general BSD feature:
> 
> https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/sys/sys/types.h#L75
> 
> http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/sys/types.h?rev=1.105&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

If the BSDs expose stdint.h types via stdio.h anyway, what's the sense
of not exposing it in the non-_BSD_VISIBLE scenario?  _BSD_VISIBLE is
default anyway, so the non-exposure of the stdint types is restricted to
files which define _XOPEN_SOURCE or some such.

Is there actually a "MUST NOT" defined anywhere in the standards or
was this change unnecessary?


Corinna