http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #78 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-03-11 15:44:59 UTC --- > --- Comment #77 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> > 2011-03-08 11:19:03 UTC --- > Great Rainer. > > As soon as 4.6.0 branches I guess we should ask Marc to present on the > libstdc++ mailing list a concise summary of the various options, I encourage > you to follow this discussion, in the light of which we'll be able to make a > decision. In general, I think we should try to be minimally invasive for Please put me on the Cc: when it starts: I'm not subscribed to libstdc++. > non-Solaris, where everything works pretty well already, thus the fixincludes > solution looks indeed very attractive. But at the outset I'm also open to more > invasive changes, in particular if they can be shown to offer further > advantages in terms of clarity or ability to solve other problems, for 4.7.0 > we > can afford that. I've started to analyse the failures caused by having a proper __cplusplus value, but there seem to be several headers and solutions involved. This isn't a problem per se, especially if they also apply to Solaris 8 and up, which might be the case with only small variations to the fixes. Once I have an idea what it takes to make the Solaris headers work with __cplusplus 199711L, I'll also engage the Solaris engineers to try and get this stuff (and other fixincludes changes, while we're at it) integrated. Rainer