From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2906
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: inttypes.h: possible logical error?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:23:43 -0400
Message-ID: <20130313172343.GF20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <5140A8C4.1050207@eservices.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363195440 24261 80.91.229.3 (13 Mar 2013 17:24:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:24:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-2907-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 13 18:24:25 2013
Return-path: <musl-return-2907-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-2907-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1UFpPZ-0005bD-N3
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:24:21 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 7344 invoked by uid 550); 13 Mar 2013 17:23:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 7336 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2013 17:23:58 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5140A8C4.1050207@eservices.virginia.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2906
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2906>

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:26:44PM -0400, Zvi Gilboa wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> In inttypes.h, the first "actual" lines read:
> 
> ....
> #include <features.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> 
> #define __NEED_wchar_t
> #include <bits/alltypes.h>
> ....
> 
> As it seems, the idea is to have <bits/alltypes.h> processed with
> __NEED_wchar_t  already defined.  However, <bits/alltypes.h> is also
> included by <stdint.h>.
> 
> In a way this is rather harmless, specifically since
> <bits/alltypes.h> can be processed more than once, yet wouldn't it
> be more logical and/or consistent to #define __NEED_wchar_t  prior
> to including <stdint.h>?  Given no conflicting considerations, the
> above code snippet would then read:
> 
> ....
> #define __NEED_wchar_t
> 
> #include <features.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <bits/alltypes.h> /* possibly redundant?  see stdint.h */
> ....
> 
> Thanks in advance for any and all feedback!

I wouldn't call it an error. It's a suboptimality, but the tradeoff is
that one header (inttypes.h) is not making assumptions about the
implementation of the other. If others want to see this changed to
save an #include, we could consider it, but it would need to be
commented that the optimization depends on the implementation of
stdint.h.

Rich