Re: [RFA] gdb is broken: missing signal.h checking

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:53:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Aha, missed that bit of detail I guess.

It's very recent :-)

> > I believe some projects (binutils and gcc maybe?) draw a distinction
> > between "an ISO C compiler" and "an ISO C standard library" and
> > require the former but not the latter.
> 
> The distinction is "Freestanding" versus "Hosted" I believe.
> Obviously GDB requires the latterm but I can see people wanting to
> support the former for gdbserver.

There's actually some further differences.  I believe - but this is
basically hearsay since I can't remember the specifics - that there
are some vendor compilers on the commercial Unices which support all
of the language features of ISO C90 but not all the runtime features.

So e.g. prototypes are fine but printf might return bogus values, to
use an example that recently bit GCC.

Anyway, I agree.  We can get away with it now.  If we encounter any
specific holes, I've been watching gnulib mature to fill them - I
still hope I can use their printf implementation for GDB soon.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery