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]

Re: Proposal for the 'long long' problems



> The C99 features (those that are meaningful in C++ -- or did you want
> to have a flag to turn on C99's complex?) should have flags of their own.
> The point is, users are not asking for ersatz C99 compatibility (which is
> the best we could do), they're interested in particular language features.  

There is a flag.

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/configopts.html

RTFM.

> I'm just saying the configure tests should look for what we need for
> the particular language feature, and not pretend to detect full C99 
> compatibility that we don't need (or want) anyway.  

They do.

See the autoconf tests in acinclude.m4.

You are certainly welcome to submit a patch that details your approach. I 
remain unconvinced, however, that it is a good idea.

best,
benjamin


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