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

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013, Andrey Semashev wrote:

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely

...

**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/9140https://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.