Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/02/12/12:02:48.1
> I'm not sure we should continue committing changes to the headers before
> we make those decisions, because that might mean waste of Stephen's time
> and efforts, in case those changes are incompatible with libstdc++ v3.
> (I assume that libstdc++ v3 will be released before DJGPP 2.04; if that's
> not true, we could ignore libstdc++ v3 for now.)
I'd like to point out that currently default libstdc++-v3 header
strategy is c_std (C headers are included into default namespace),
not c_shadow. And libstdc++ sources state that some day c_shadow
will become default. So it is WIP now, and this means that their
implementation details may change. I suggest asking in libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
first before relying on their header internal details.
> This became a major issue with the current attitude of the GCC
> developers, not only wrt C++ headers. However, I don't see how can we do
> anything to avoid this danger, given that the GCC maintainers don't give
> a * about our (or anyone else's) concerns.
GCC and libstdc++ maintainers are different people, so far they've been
helpful (althought always busy as well.). I seriously advise to ask in
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org how this problem should be solved.
Laurynas
- Raw text -