Re: PATCH: AIX vs. const

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

>>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@stanford.edu> writes:

    Zack> Wouldn't this be cleaner in system.h?

I dunno.  How could it ever be clean? :-)  

It's config.h that #undef's `const' if the compiler doesn't support
it, and here I wanted to pretend that the compiler didn't support it,
so it made sense to me; I considered and reject system.h.

But, not out of any firm convinctions, particularly.  If you/Kaveh
want to move it, go for it...

To me, it's a design bug in our system that you can even include some
of these headers without others.  For example, why doesn't system.h
include config.h?  Why doesn't defaults.h get included by itself after
the machine's .h file is read in?  Etc.  There are funny order
sensitivities so that you have to "know" (or guess or copy) the right
order to include things in...

Basically, I think our whole header file system is charmingly
baroque. :-)

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com