Re: [RFA/RFC] Remove check of ctype.h include in safe-ctype.h?

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant@google.com>

> Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
>
> > > I'm not sure we should be #including <safe-ctype.h> in gcc/system.h.
> > > It seems to me that we should include it in the relatively few files
> > > which need it.
> >
> > A quick grep of all macros defined in safe-ctype.h inside the gcc
> > subdirectory gives a rather long list :-(: 78 files (see [1]).
> >
> > If I include the rest of the tree in the search, we have to add
> > 22 more files (see [2]).
> >
> > I don't mind making the change, but is this desired?
>
> That is more than I expected.  Still, I don't mind if you make this
> change.  The Darwin build problem does have to be fixed one way or
> another.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing other comments.
> Ian


Would it work to instead #poison isalpha et al in gcc/system.h?  Then remove 
the check from safe-ctype.h altogether.  (Oh I think there are several 
system.h files (like one in libcpp, etc).  We'd need to do the poison in all 
of them (but not in tsystem.h).  Then merely including both ctype.h and 
safe-ctype.h isn't an error, it's when you *use* the lowercase versions that 
the conflict is caught.  I don't know if this solves the darwin problem or 
not.  Also, this has the disadvantage in that users of safe-ctype.h other 
than GCC will not have the check.

--Kaveh