Re: c_std/ and throw()

[Jason Merrill <jason_merrill at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

> I think we all agree that this cfns.gperf mechanism is the way to do this 
> kind of stuff. It's much cleaner that way.

For stuff in the C standard, yes.  For POSIX stuff and other C code, we
will still need some sort of annotation in the header, and throw() seems
like a reasonable choice.  But I suppose we don't need to worry about such
functions in libstdc++.

> Could you use something like the --enable-c99 flag that the library is 
> using? Ie if the user actively wants C99 support and configures with it, 
> then the extra C99 functions are added to cfns.gperf. That seems to match 
> the way the library is now configured.

I think making this a configure-time choice is wrong, for the library as
well as the compiler.  Most users don't build their own libstdc++.  Can't
it be controlled by a predefined macro?

> I don't see a way to turn this on and off on the command line. I'm 
> historically bad at seeing ways to do things that way though.

For the compiler, it's just a matter of adding a second field to the
elements of cfns.gperf, and the associated changes in code that uses it.

Jason