On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > in C++
>> > struct lt_dlhandle
>> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
>> > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
>>
>> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by
>> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
> So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.
Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make me change my
mind about it :-)
> It does NOT appear
> to be valid C++ code
I've just managed to compile:
typedef struct foo foo;
with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand
why G++ is complaining about it.
If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the
problem, so that it can at least be documented.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
