Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.arch.embedded
Subject: Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 18:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <r8uuj1$3j8$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <r8uo2j$4l2$1@solani.org> <r8upn1$89t$1@reader2.panix.com> <r8urd0$7el$1@solani.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: c-68-46-86-141.hsd1.mn.comcast.net
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1588788641 3688 68.46.86.141 (6 May 2020 18:10:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 18:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6079 comp.arch.embedded:29614

On 2020-05-06, Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> wrote:
> Am 06.05.20 um 18:47 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>>>
>>> Do you see any reason those could not be provided on some C
>>> implementation?
>> 
>> Memory size.
>
> Could you elaborate?
>
> I do not see a problem there: If the programmer doesn't use e.g.
> memcpy(), no memcpy() will be linked in, so memory size would not be
> affected.

Would that be required by the spec?

--
Grant