Hi FX,
>> However, please note that the comment states
>> * This should be bypassed on __cplusplus, but some supposedly C++
>> * aware headers, such as Solaris 8 and 9, don't wrap their struct
>> It's "such as Solaris 8 and 9", so there may well be others.
>
> I know, but that was 24 years ago, and I could find zero documentation
> anywhere (mailing-list or bugzilla) of what those other targets could be. I
> don’t think it’s unreasonable, for the benefit of all the other working
> targets, to reverse now. It is early in stage 1, and the fix be restored if
> needed on specific targets.
I know, and I certainly won't oppose removing such cruft, just stating
that you won't find out what breaks until something breaks ;-) The
problem is: if those fixes are only needed on lesser-used (and -tested)
targets, it may take quite some time until one does find out...
I'd have loved to remove fixes that mention obsolete Solaris versions,
but refrained from doing so when there was no way of knowing that no
innocent would be harmed.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
