This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Rename unwind.h to unwind-gcc.h
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Douglas B Rupp <rupp at adacore dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:12:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: Rename unwind.h to unwind-gcc.h
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <534C168F dot 8060400 at adacore dot com> <CAKOQZ8wOqyJp1dEDJAOcZfrq7y2OKtjNsZ8KyUstTYK5Y769gQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <534D1BD1 dot 1080100 at adacore dot com> <CAH6eHdSHZ=NY+qk91==n12BB9bwyg4377GjeyXXp=aXyBKNEWQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:03:42PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 April 2014 12:45, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
> > No I considered that but I think that number will be very small. Will you
> > concede, in hindsight, that it would be better had the name been chosen to
> > be more unique?
> No argument from me there, but the same applies to VxWorks, who have
> now chosen the same not-very-distinctive name, but it's even worse in
> their case as that name has been in use by GCC for many years.
> This seems rather foolish of VxWorks, but knowing that doesn't solve anything.
> Could we install the file as unwind-gcc.h and conditionally install
> another file called unwind.h with the content below if a configure
> test including <unwind.h> fails:
> #warning "This header file is deprecated, use unwind-gcc.h instead"
> #include_next "unwind-gcc.h"
Given that unwind.h is a header installed by several compilers, I'd say
even the deprecation warning is highly undesirable.