This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Proposal for the 'long long' problems
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: Proposal for the 'long long' problems
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
> 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.
> 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.
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.