This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: included file in std_algorithm.h
- From: "Jeffrey Turner" <jturner at mail dot alum dot rpi dot edu>
- To: <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <jturner at mail dot alum dot rpi dot edu>
- Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:08:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: included file in std_algorithm.h
- Reply-to: <jturner at mail dot alum dot rpi dot edu>
>Hello,
>
>In bits/std_algorithm.h there's the following line:
oops, it's in bits/std_functional and a number of other
files, but not in bits/std_algorithm (std_cmath.h,
std_complex.h, std_cstdio.h, std_cstdlib.h, cwchar.h
iomanip, iosfwd, iostream...).
Another question, for maximum portability should I
use the keywords and, or, or_eq, etc.? Is there or
will there be a policy on this? Thanks.
>#include <bits/c++config.h>
>
>However, the only file in bits which comes close is
>c++config [nb: no .h]. I suppose that shows the
>importance of _that_ header file.
>
>BTW, I am working on updating the whole libstdc++
>in both programming style and the use of #includes
>which someone mentioned should only be in the
>standard library files.
>
>One other question, why are the files referred to
>by <cxxxxxx> in one (or is it two) separate directories
>from the other <xxxxxxx> C++ standard headers?
>What differentiates c_std from c_shadow? I think it
>might be wise as a hint to put the carry-over, non-
>namespace C headers in include/deprecated, any thoughts?
>
>--Jeff Turner
>
>Who put the Sam in the "'Sama Laden Ding-Dong"?
>
>PS. Can I get on the official list of maintainers, please?
>