Getting 3.3 out the door

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:16:18PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 15:02, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> > 
> > Can I lobby a little for c++/9393? I only rediscovered this these days, so 
> > I doubt anyone has looked at it with an angle on 3.3 (because it didn't 
> > have priority "high" until very recently). It's
> > - a problem that one cannot work around
> > - generates code that cannot be linked
> > - violates the C++ standard
> > - a regression against 2.95
> > - breaks my application and prevents Brad from running it on his system :-)
> 
> We've already fought about this one. :-)  See my "Release-Note" there.
> 
> This one can't be fixed in the 3.3 time frame, I don't think.

In the interim, couldn't we do something based on a hash of the command
line options, or so?  It's not perfect, but it is an improvement; and
there are no binary compatibility issues in choosing the mangled names
for anonymous namespaces, so an interim solution should be acceptable.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer