This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: basic-improvements merge status
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, 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: 17 Dec 2002 22:44:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20021217084635.GQ3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz><firstname.lastname@example.org><20021217214156.GD7486@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Jan Hubicka <email@example.com> writes:
| > --On Tuesday, December 17, 2002 09:46:35 AM +0100 Jan Hubicka <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| > wrote:
| > >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.
When cross-compiling, it is to be expected that the person doing the
build will provide the list of assumed missing functions. It is no
different from the usual constraints when cross-compiling.