public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/27340] valarray uses __cos which may conflict with libm functions Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:43:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20060428204335.16227.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-27340-6008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #4 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-28 20:43 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Well, I think Andrew has a point: suppose we rename all those functions to > _M_cos and co. Then, later, we discover that a third libc (not Solaris, not > GNU) conflicts with those names too... The point is that there is no *robust* > concept of less-conflict prone name: I thought about a name that contains gcc or glibcxx or something like that, but now I understand Andrew's point, thank you. > if such conflicts happen then something is > wrong in the design, something profound is wrong, somewhere. So something is wrong in the design. If the wrong thing is in that the libc and compiler are separate entities, there is little we can do about it. So what can be done? Should all those private classes and functions be declared in some specific namespace std::glibcxx_private to have a single point of failure? The current names (__cos and similar) do conflict, and unless a better solution is proposed, renaming (and re-renaming if there still are problems) seems like the easy way to fix it. > We already > discussed this issue in another context (header guards names), and, not having > looked very closely into this specific issue, I'm pretty convinced. Convinced of what? (sorry about my slow understanding of these conversations, I am quite new to gcc, and I guess the style needs some time to sink in) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27340
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-28 20:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2006-04-27 19:00 [Bug libstdc++/27340] New: " marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-27 19:07 ` [Bug libstdc++/27340] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-28 10:33 ` marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-04-28 20:01 ` pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-28 20:43 ` marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org [this message] 2006-04-28 21:18 ` pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-28 21:57 ` marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-05-01 23:40 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2010-02-05 13:07 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 17:52 ` marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-02-06 19:07 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 19:18 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-06 19:43 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 19:43 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 20:41 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-06 20:44 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 22:21 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20060428204335.16227.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).