Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Path | csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:10:01 -0500 |
| Return-Path | <cppmods@glengoyne.dreamhost.com> |
| Sender | std-cpp-request@vandevoorde.com |
| Approved | austern@google.com |
| Message-ID | <lnzitm2e50.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c++ |
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
| Subject | Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| References | <ddpc8vF69dfU5@mid.individual.net> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| X-Original-Date | Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:59:07 -0700 |
| X-Submission-Address | std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com |
| Date | Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:07:25 CST |
| Lines | 28 |
| X-Usenet-Provider | http://www.giganews.com |
| X-Trace | sv3-s7inLyspSKgtBsC31zdW/O8/CCiPF99yd/n9gfNC3ijm3PNOuVxie88MxGuoVxkrVk4Py8ZuEYyvWR6!INvktK7RbqrFDLMFQO1r2grI93UT5IyDteW8/ri21+bNDcLn82ASpfVErdI= |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@giganews.com |
| X-DMCA-Notifications | http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly |
| X-Postfilter | 1.3.40 |
| X-Original-Bytes | 2424 |
| X-Received-Bytes | 2536 |
| X-Received-Body-CRC | 585537105 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.std.c++:789 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Ian Collins <ian-news@this.is.invalid> writes:
> Has there ever been a move to formally identify standard library
> headers that don't require run time (especially dynamic allocation)
> support? An obvious example would be <array>.
>
> The reason I ask is to make at least a subset of the standard library
> available to smaller embedded projects.
That sounds similar to the existing distinction between hosted and
freestanding implementations. C++11 17.6.1.3 [compliance] has a list of
the subset of the standard headers that must be supported for
freestanding implementations. Perhaps <array> (and others?) should be
added to that list.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]
Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous — Previous in thread | Find similar
Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Ian Collins <ian-news@this.is.invalid> - 2016-01-05 13:16 -0600
Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Martin Bonner <martinfrompi@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 13:07 -0600
Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2016-01-15 13:07 -0600
Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-08 11:27 -0600
Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-02-08 11:27 -0600
Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Ian Collins <ian-news@this.is.invalid> - 2016-02-20 15:18 -0600
Re: Specifying standard headers that don't require run time support Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-01 19:07 -0600
csiph-web