Re: Idea: Splitting up config header

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:28:58AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:
> 
> |     1) header macros used only while building libstdc++
> |     2) header macros used only while using libstdc++
> |     3) header macros used while both building and using libstdc++
> |     4) header macros used only while testing libstdc++
> |     5) header macros never used
> | 
> | (1) through (3) are entangled -- think "Gordian Knot" -- and I've no plans
> | to try and fix that.
> 
> I do not consider that is broken, therefore I do not consider it needs
> a "fix".

I consider it quite problematic, but this is something on which reasonable
people can disagree.  And as I don't plan on changing it, we won't need
to worry about it.


> | I propose splitting (5) out into its own header.  If you're wondering,
> | "why do we name macros in config.h.in which will never be used?" the answer
> | is, we didn't, autoheader added them.  See, in addition to adding all the
> | macros that we define ourselves, autoheader also adds macros which autoconf
> | defines for us whether we {need,use,want} them or not.
> 
> what do they look like?

For starters, a bunch of misleading PACKAGE_* names.  They would be useful
if we were still generating standalone libstdc++ releases, but we don't,
so they're useless and worse than useless.


Phil

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
    - Brian W. Kernighan