Re: changing include/g++-v3 to something a bit more obvious

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:31:35PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> 
> This is wrong, as most people on this list know, the libstdc++-v3
> header files go into include/g++-v3.
> 
> However, the difference is not really obvious to most users, and many
> people knew to these libraries get easily confused from the
> non-intuitive directory naming.

No kidding.  This drives me nuts.  It makes sense only to the people who
know the guts of the various ABIs, but not to the users installing it.


> Since g++-3 is supposed to represent something to do with the actual
> C++ ABI (I think: this has always been a bit unclear), wouldn't it
> make more sense to just do something like
[plans involving the compiler version]

I got the impression that it's "the third change to the C++ ABI," or
"the third incompatible C++ ABI," or something like that.

Anyhow, if the compiler version is going to play a part in the directory
naming, why not just put the tree under gcc-lib/platform/version?  The main
obstacle to the compiler's -V option is that too many of the include files
are outside of the -V-controlled tree in the first place.

There's already an 'include' subdir; we could just make it 'include/g++'
and let the pathname speak for itself.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.