This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: basic-improvements merge status


> 
> 
> --On Monday, December 16, 2002 11:50:51 PM +0100 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> 
> wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>> Jan Hubicka writes:
> >>
> >>Jan> As I've mentined I am handling this with the other patch that
> >>disables Jan> the transfomration for C90 until we decide how to detect
> >>such systems. Jan> On C99 and C++ it is always valid as runtime is
> >>required to have it (and Jan> thats why libstdc++ does it).  I hope
> >>Richard will have time to take a Jan> look on these patches soon.
> >>
> >>	Would you please include a pointer to the patch?  I have been
> >>browsing your patches and cannot find one that fixes this problem.
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/msg00619.html
> 
> I agree with Neil -- this isn't the right fix.  As he says, the C99
> switch indicates that the source is C99 source; we should't make any
> assumptions about the target library based on that.

As I've mentioned, I was moslty interested in adding the extra bits to
allow/disallow implicit function call construction and hoped that we
will figure out the proper way to configure it on the way.
> 
> Please revert, or at least disable, your change until we can figure out

OK, I will disable the transfromation for the moment.
The change does more than just the this trick so I don't want to revert
it as a whole.

> how to do the configury bits.  (One possibility is explicitly flags in
> the tm.h file.)

WHat do you think is the correct way to handle it?

Honza
> 
> --
> Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]