Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 06:14:48 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: <86k11nzy2f.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b769366f99350c90aa3bc88bc2611d43"; logging-data="28331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ok2zAuOCsDg2NO4NEQtR6ebenH10cxqw=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:wGfVoBbX1KTY3298OXXISM/zr60= sha1:wYMGK6sojfH0BPICrwq3U9kqMSQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6096 Philipp Klaus Krause writes: > In C, most of the standard library is mandatory for hosted > implementations only, not for freestadning implementations. > Still, I see many functions, such as memcpy() and abs() often used in > programs for embedded systems, and see no obstacles to implementing them > even on small systems. > > Should more of the standard library become mandatory for freestanding > implementations? > > For string.h, I have written a first draft of a proposal: > > http://www.colecovision.eu/stuff/proposal-freestanding-string.html > > What do you think of it? > > Do you see any reason those could not be provided on some C implementation? > > Which further functions would you like to become mandatory for > freestanding C implementations? I second the comments of Grant Edwards and Hans-Bernhard Broeker. Freestanding implementations may provide whatever additional library facilities they choose, but the required set should be kept where it is, at an absolute minimum.