Re: [libstdc++] Add --disable-hosted-libstdcxx, clean up conditionals

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Bill Wendling <wendling@ncsa.uiuc.edu> writes:

| Also sprach Gabriel Dos Reis:
| } "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
| } 
| } | Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
| } | 
| } | Technical limitations of Bourne shell unfortunately have to trump
| } | aesthetics.
| } 
| } Sure.  But, my motivation was not aesthetics.
| } 
| The "+" is not acceptable in a flag. It's a limitation, as mentioned
| above. So the common way to deal with this is to replace + with x. It's
| really that simple. This is a valid, well-thoughtout reason why you can't
| have + in there.

Did I say the reason Phil enounciated was not valid?  No.  So
side-tracking the discussion on that road won't be fruitful.

"+" is not acceptable for a bourne shell variable name, fine.  I don't
dispute that simple fact.  It was decided that that "+" should be
replaced with "x". That also is fine.  And I don't disupte it.  
That conversion may be automated by having sed translate "+" to "x".
Should the user-specified be written with the machine oriented name?
I think no.  And that is what motivated my request.
the option --disable-hosted-libstdc++ flag can be translated to
"disable_hosted_libstdcxx" variable name.  There is no innovation
there. 

Are you also proposing we should say --enable-languages=cxx instead of
the straight --enable-languages=c++?  Atre you also proposinig we
rename the compiler from g++ to gxx?


-- Gaby