Re: [boost] Policy about non-compliant standard headers

Subject: Re: [boost] Policy about non-compliant standard headers
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-09-21 12:19:46

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
>  On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> <jwakely.boost_at_[hidden]>**wrote:
>>
>>  On 21 September 2013 08:31, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was reported an issue with Boost.Log which fails to compile with Sun
>>>>
>>> Pro
>>>
>>>> compiler because it has non-compliant standard C headers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Non-compliant in what way?  Solaris headers are usually pretty strict.
>>>
>>
>> Missing std::swprintf/std::vswprintf.
>>
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/**boost/ticket/9140
>

>>
>
> Well, it is boost that is broken. snprintf is not part of C++03, you can't
> count on cstdio providing it. And in C++11 (when solaris will support
> that), cstdio will provide std::snprintf but still not ::snprintf unless
> Oracle completely changes the way solaris headers are organized.
>

It's not about snprintf, it's about swprintf and vswprintf, both of which
are in C++98 standard.

> Please don't say things like "it has non-compliant standard C headers"
> when you aren't even talking of C headers. stdio.h does provide snprintf on
> solaris (possibly depending on some flags to select the relevant standard).
>

The C++ standard defines a number of headers which define C components.
These headers are part of the standard, and if a compiler doesn't implement
them right, the compiler is non-compliant. I don't see the other way to put
it.