--- Comment #17 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-18
15:10 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> So there's a problem with the multiple-include-protection in glibc!
Yes, the way it is done in solaris is way more convenient. There, stdlib.h
includes a file iso/stdlib_iso.h th
--- Comment #18 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-18 17:49 ---
Probably this PR should be suspended, while waiting for the resolution of DR
456:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#456
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6257
--- Comment #19 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-19
11:09 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Probably this PR should be suspended, while waiting for the resolution of DR
> 456:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#456
Whether the situation r
--- Comment #20 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-19 11:19 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Probably this PR should be suspended, while waiting for the resolution of DR
> > 456:
> >
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#456
>
--- Comment #21 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-19
11:38 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> the
> very same source code would not be be portable across those targets. I don't
> think we would like that. Besides, more generally, I'm not at all sure that
> all the users wo
--- Comment #22 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-19 11:44 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> I meant proposing it as a choice, with a flag like -fclean-global-namespace
> (better than a macro since it probably means changing the include path and
> redefining a few macros), which needs n
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-22 02:09
---
*** Bug 27255 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #24 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-04-30 23:05
---
Subject: Re: C-library symbols enter global namespace
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #20)
| > the
| > very same source code would not be be portab
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 12:41
---
*** Bug 26153 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05
20:24 ---
*** Bug 19279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-03 03:42
---
So there's a problem with the multiple-include-protection in glibc!
We actually want to include the headers twice, potentially -- once when
included via et al, with everything in namespaces, and once when
included
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #20)
| > the
| > very same source code would not be be portable across those targets. I don't
| > think we would like that. Besides, more generally, I'm not at all sure that
| > all the users would actually
12 matches
Mail list logo
