[RFC] fmemopen posix compliance

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> And currently I see there is no point of providing an unique implementation
> now that POSIX has a working fmemopen definition.  So I propose by placing current
> implementation in a versioned symbol and adding a POSIX compliance one for
> GLIBC 2.20 and forward.

For the future, if/when there is a push to get glibc extensions
adopted in POSIX, I hope somebody from the glibc side can review the
proposed standard text in detail and raise issues of minor
incompatibility before it gets adopted, so that this doesn't happen
again.

Rich