Re: Moving C11 Functions from winsup to newlib
Brian Inglis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.newlib |
|---|---|
| Organization | Systematic Software |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2025-03-17 13:20, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 1:18 PM Corinna Vinschen <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Mar 17 09:48, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Thanks. Sounds like moving the uchar.h file is a good idea. But newlib will > > need its > > own more flexible implementation. > > Exactly. > > > What about the C11 function timespec_get? Cygwin has the obvious > > implementation. Should that just go in time/? Are Cygwin implementations not LGPL-3.0-or-later (with linking exception - irrelevant here)? https://cygwin.com/licensing.html https://cygwin.com/COPYING.LIB > Sure, no worries. However, not yet. We're working on the Cygwin 3.6 > release, and I would prefer if we do a function and header reshuffle > only after we cut the 3.6 branch. > > > Gotcha. This is preparing for potential Google Summer of Code work. > These looked to be the easiest to address. > > For RTEMS, I'd rather see the new POSIX Issue 8 methods like > pthread_mutex_clocklock() get added but ultimately, we want better > C11 support also. > > Any thoughts on the Annex K optional Bounds-checking interfaces? > I haven't done a lot of research on implementations but there is this > one: https://github.com/sbaresearch/slibc <https://github.com/sbaresearch/slibc> That appears to be L/GPL not BSD! -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retrancher but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry