From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12936 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2004 15:00:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12924 invoked by uid 48); 23 Sep 2004 15:00:32 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040923150032.12923.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040923120008.17632.peb@mppmu.mpg.de> References: <20040923120008.17632.peb@mppmu.mpg.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/17632] Non-portable whitespace in libstdc++ headers X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg02778.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-23 15:00 ------- > Should we not instead ask people to fix their tools to be standard > compliant, and close this bug as INVALID? I would consider this a > bug in whatever tool crashes on this, not one in libstdc++. Nitpick: It wasn't submitted as a bug, but as an enhancement request. Even it's a bug in other tools, it would not be a big problem on GCC's side to make it work. (We are just talking about some whitespace here). That does not keep us from asking people to fix their tools. In addition, applying the patch would unify our coding style since we already have the form "# include" in our libstdc++ sources. Therefore, I'd be in favor for applying the patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17632