[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: time_r.h -> time_.h
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: time_r.h -> time_.h |
Date: |
Fri, 9 Feb 2007 02:06:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.4 |
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Any obvious reason we shouldn't create a time.h with the contents of
> the current time_r.h, using the same logic we use to replace string.h?
>
> It would be nice to avoid '#include "time_r.h"' and just do '#include
> <time.h>' in my code.
The full TODO list for this topic is below.
But I would find it good to wait a month or so, to stabilize the idioms
used in <string.h> and string_h.m4. Not everyone has yet tried to compile
his project with -DGNULIB_POSIXCHECK and to see whether the warnings and
errors are useful. Also Paul has plans to simplify these idioms (although I
don't agree that it's possible to simplify them without sacrificing
either correctness, quality of error messages, or maintainability).
Bruno
<inttypes.h>
strtoimax
strtoumax
<limits.h>
size_max.h
<math.h>
mathl.h
<netdb.h>
getaddrinfo.h
<search.h>
tsearch.h
<signal.h>
sigprocmask.h
<stdio.h>
snprintf.h
vsnprintf.h
<stdlib.h>
exit.h
mkdtemp.h
mkstemp.h
<time.h>
time_r.h
timespec.h
strptime.h
<unistd.h>
chown
dup2
fchdir
ftruncate
getcwd.h
getlogin_r.h
getsubopt.h
lstat
readlink
<wchar.h>
wcwidth.h
<arpa/inet.h>
inet_ntop
inet_pton