This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: basic-improvements merge status
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:41:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status
- References: <20021217084635.GQ3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> --On Tuesday, December 17, 2002 09:46:35 AM +0100 Jan Hubicka <email@example.com>
> >OK, I will create updated patch with TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS macro and set
> >it via linux.h file. Does this sound sane?
> It sounds OK to me, but it sounds like some people (for example, Gaby)
> think we can do better via autoconf. It we can do it with autoconf,
> that's better, I guess.
What I don't like about autoconf is that we can't do that completely
reliably - we can't do that when cross compiling or when there are
multiple possible runtime, like in mingw.
I will send the TARGET_* as soon as I finish testing and lets discuss
futher improvement on top of that. OK?
> Would you explore that alternative? If that doesn't look doable, then,
> yes, TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS sounds good.
> Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
> CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com