Re: RFC: What should go in our <version> header?

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 at 17:49, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> On 06/15/2018 11:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > My preference is implemented by the attached patch.
> >
> This is pretty much what I was looking at doing.  I say go!

Thanks for the feedback, I'll add <version> later today.

> > While on the subject, should we just delete some of this autoconf-junk
> > from our c++config.h headers?
> >
> > /* Name of package */
> > /* #undef _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE */
> >
> > /* Define to the address where bug reports for this package should be
> > sent. */
> > #define _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_BUGREPORT ""
> >
> > /* Define to the full name of this package. */
> > #define _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_NAME "package-unused"
> >
> > /* Define to the full name and version of this package. */
> > #define _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_STRING "package-unused version-unused"
> >
> > /* Define to the one symbol short name of this package. */
> > #define _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_TARNAME "libstdc++"
> >
> > /* Define to the home page for this package. */
> > #define _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_URL ""
> >
> > /* Define to the version of this package. */
> > #define _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE__GLIBCXX_VERSION "version-unused"
> >
> I don't have an opinion here except if this is unused cruft let's lose
> it.  I think we *are* supposed to have some project and version
> identification.  We have _GLIBCXX_* everywhere.  The folks that use
> libstdc++ *outside* of g++ might have some opinions about this too.

I think they're more likely to use _GLIBCXX_RELEASE (and maybe
__GLIBCXX__ although that's not very useful) as documented at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/using_macros.html

The PACKAGE_* macros are defined by autoconf for the package's own
use, typically for the output of "cmd --version" and for naming
tarballs. Libstdc++ isn't a standalone package, doesn't have a
--version option, and isn't distributed in its own tarball.