> Hi Valery,
>
> Thanks for this nice explanation. Microsoft had recently the same idea
> than us 7 years ago ::)
>
> If nobody objects, I will rename this function StrDup to R__StrDup.
Nooooo !!!! I MUST disagree. This way we (ROOT users) will be forced
to do the same across OUR codes with NO solid reason. Just because one ROOT
guy doesn't want to delete a line of his code.
One can not solve the problem with
#define StrDup R_StrDup
since MS include file does exactly the same
#define StrDup StrDupA
EXTREMELY expansive exercise even ROOT is free
If he can not remove that line I would advice him to add one extra line:
#include <shlwapi.h>
#undef StrDup
That must solve his local problem and introduce no new one for the rest ROOT
community.
Best regards, Valeri
>
> Rene Brun
>
> Valeri Fine wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Brandos I ewould appreciate you probide Sbj line with your messages.
> > I used to delete right away any message with no "Subj"
> >
> > Coming back to Rene's answer:
> >
> > > The functions like Strdup were implemented in the early days of Root
> > > under Windows to circumvent deficiencies in the Windows implementation
> > > of the standard Posix functions (well strdup is not posix), strchr, strcpy, etc.
> > > We found that the Windows implementation crashes if you pass a null pointer
> > > eg to strchr.
> > > The ROOT code is now protected everywhere against calls to these functions
> > > with null pointers.
> > > Functions like Strdup could be removed from existing code and we do not use it
> > > in the new code.
> > >
> > > However, I do not understand how you can get a duplication with Strdup.
> > > This function is not defined in the MS libs.
> >
> > It is not correct. MS has introduced this function recently,
> > Very likely they had had the same reason ROOT team had:
> >
> > 1. There is no standard for strdup
> >
> > 2. the behaviour of str<bla> functions provided with zero pointer is not defined
> > and causes the program crash (not under Windows only. It is still true for other
> > (UNIX) platforms also.
> >
> > However I have to mention MS defines his StrDup function with
> > "#include <shlwapi.h>"
> > If one could avoid this include one may have avoided the name clash.
> >
> > (See attachment)
> >
> > Best regards, Valeri
> > >
> > > Rene Brun
> > >
> > > Brandon Kohn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> > > > Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I've been mucking around with Root and win32 stuff for a while now, and I've
> > > found some curiosities that I would like answered. For one, it seems that root
> > > redefines some functions that exist in standard libraries (ansi, unix, and
> > > win32). For instance, the function StrDup in TString. I get name conflicts
> > > when I try to compile root objects (TH1 for instance) with some codes that
> > > already include the function from the standard lib. A cursory inspection of the
> > > code StrDup shows that it simply new's a char array, strcpy's the string and
> > > returns the ptr to the new array. Is this different then what the standard lib
> > > does?
> > >
> > > If not, can it be removed from Root?
> > >
> > > Brandon Kohn
> > > +377 97 97 41 50 ext. 306 (Work)
> > > +377 97 77 86 71 (Home)
> > > Monaco
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Name: Text1.tmp
> > Text1.tmp Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream)
> > Encoding: 7bit
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:51:09 MET