This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFC] "C" header options
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: [RFC] "C" header options
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:19:20 -0500 (CDT)
- Cc: bkoz at redhat dot com
- Organization: Networks and Infrastructure Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
- References: <01060809422500.22527@swebb-slack>
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010608112507.18064Demail@example.com>
>> It's my opinion, and yes, I am slightly biased here, that 3) is the
>> best choice for the long run (read 3.1) since it is robust AND it's
>> compliant AND it's simple.
> The more interesting question is what to do with the staging headers
> patch of yours, Stephen. I've used it for the last couple of days in my
> source tree and I think it is an improvement to what had existed. It
> takes some getting used to, but there are some real advantages to
> treating all the headers as things that must be built.
I too have reviewed Stephen's work in this area, as last posted by
Benjamin (although I haven't added it to any source trees). I like
the idea of moving to "everything to be installed as a header is