[libcxx] Reinstate <string.h> and fix overload sets to be const-correct wherever possible

[Howard Hinnant via cfe-commits]

Fwiw, if you ever here me gripe about the C++ committee’s poor record of messing around in the C headers with detrimental effects, this is what I’m referring to.  Yes, the C++ signatures are superior.  No, this wasn’t a good thing to do.  The C++ committee should not try to change or delete stuff in the C headers.  Instead the C++ committee should provide superior alternatives in C++-owned headers.

To be clear, my comment is not about Richard’s fine patch.  It is about the C++ committee’s decades old mistake of trying to change C headers.  I am being noisy in the hopes that it helps us (the C++ committee) never again repeat this mistake.

Howard

On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:32 PM, Richard Smith via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ping.
> 
> Sorry about that.
> Completely missed this in my email flood.
> 
> This approach looks ok to me, but I wonder if it would be better to get Apple to fix their iOS C library instead.
> 
> Well, it's not broken in the sense that it does what the C standard library is supposed to do. But it's not providing the "C pieces" of a C++ standard library. I don't know what its design goal is here, but with this patch we don't need to care.
> 
> Duncan offered to file a bug on this, but I don't know if that's happened.
> 
> Are there other broken C libraries that we are concerned with?
> 
> Probably :) I don't know the complete set of C standard library implementations that people use with libc++, but I'd be surprised if Darwin were the only case we need to fix.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits