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
