Re: [Patch] Fix ac_c99_complex configury

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>| Means adding "old iostreams members", *members*, *not headers*: that is,
>| the various typedefs in D.6/1, stossc() in /7, etc., etc. Really, I
>| think you are forcing the text to say *much* more than it says.
>
>But just look at what other implementers do.  If you believe this is
>my invention, why don't you ask on the -lib reflector for existing
>practice?
>
We are talking about the standard, not the other implementations, here.
If you want to get directions from the standard about this matter, the
standard is defective, we don't need to ask the reflector about this.
Also, we don't need to ask the reflector or elsewhere, about other
implementations, because *I* told you about ICC/Dinkum. But this is
another side, which brings us to...

>| I can give you any answer, and of course I agree that there are
>| currently problems in this area. A *completely* different issue,
>| however, is whether the proper fix involves removing a subset of the
>| backward headers. As already mentioned, that choice is only *a* choice,
>| not the only possible choice, as a matter of fact.
>
> What problems do you see with the other headers? 
>  
>
... Dinkum provides the complete set, including <complex.h> and
everything. Either we pay attention to the actual practice outside of
GCC or not. Before deciding unilaterally to do something different and
not regulated by the standard I'm asking that we explore thoroughly the
other options.

Paolo.