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: [v3] libstdc++/20534, debug mode vs. includes

From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>
Cc: pcarlini at suse dot de, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:11:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [v3] libstdc++/20534, debug mode vs. includes
References: <20050525165953.592f5d9f.bkoz@redhat.com><4294F89C.4060104@suse.de><m3mzqjvt4m.fsf@merlin.cs.tamu.edu>

> I was wondering whether we should not ask for __builtin_assert()...

...that was my first thought as well. I think we get this with the
static_assert stuff, right?

The more I looked at this, the more the clean separation of
public/private macros appealed. I think this solution is better,
interface-wise, anyway.

-benjamin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] libstdc++/20534, debug mode vs. includes
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- [v3] libstdc++/20534, debug mode vs. includes
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [v3] libstdc++/20534, debug mode vs. includes
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] libstdc++/20534, debug mode vs. includes
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

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