Re: Included Interfaces without documentation update

[Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk>]

Dan Kegel writes:

> Guess I have egg all over my face.  The _IO_ thing appears
> to be very public.  What would be the best forum for asking
> why glibc uses this convention?  Seems kind of strange that
> C programs compiled against glibc use _IO_putc instead of
> putc; doesn't that violate existing ABI's 
> (e.g. SysV http://www.sco.com/developer/devspecs/gabi41.pdf )?

I don't see how the expansion of putc() to _IO_putc() is conceptually
any different from the SysV expansion of putc() to an expression
involving a call to __flsbuf, which is indeed listed in that PDF.
Implementing putc and getc as macros with bits of libc internals in
them seems to be extremely common.

ttfn/rjk