This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
why include/bits/std_XXX.h?
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:04:33 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: why include/bits/std_XXX.h?
Again, I ask you to provide an independent way of verifying your
assertion about make deleting like-named header files.
To the best of my knowledge, you have never done so.
Because of this, I consider elements of the current header design
suspect. Namely, the existence of include/bits/std_xxxx.h, where xxx
is the name included in paragraph 2 of [17.4.1.2 - Headers]. Note,
explicitly excluded is paragraph 3, "C++ Headers for C Library
Facilities." (Because "C" compatibility headers are still a
work-in-progress, additional flexibility is required for them.)
I consider the existence of these files predicated on an assumption that
is demonstratedly false. Furthermore, I believe I have demonstrated this
in my last email.
> Nobody has claimed to have fixed the bug, verified that it was fixed,
> or even verified that any GNU make maintainer ever admitted that it
> is a bug.
Please prove the existence of this bug. Then, prove existence in the
libstdc++ Makefiles, since that is the domain under discussion. I haven't
seen evidence of either case.
> It should work correctly.
That's not in dispute. I'm asking you to re-justify your initial
assumptions about header design. I don't consider this unreasonable.
If they no longer apply, let's simplify.
-benjamin