LegalizeAdulthood added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17484#358617, @alexfh wrote:
> Thank you for this check! Mostly looks good, but there are a number of style > nits. > > The most important question to this check is that the standard doesn't > guarantee that the C++ headers declare all the same functions **in the global > namespace** (at least, this is how I understand the section of the standard > you quoted). Oh crap, I totally forgot about this. Yes, I believe the weasel wording in the standard is that an implementation may put the symbols in the global namespace as well as inside `std` when the C++ header is used, but is not required to put them in the global namespace. They are required to put them in namespace `std` when the C++ header form is used. So if you switch to C++ headers, you code may still compile, but it is implementation dependent. If you use the C headers, you can't prefix symbols with `std` because they won't be there. In other discussions of this topic, it was considered best to make both changes at the same time: switch to the C++ header and decorate the symbols with `std` prefix. It would be reasonable for this check to insert a `using namespace std;` at the top of the translation unit after all the `#include` lines as a means of preserving meaning without trying to identify every symbol that needs `std` on it. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17484 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
