From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20041 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2010 15:56:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 19925 invoked by uid 48); 21 Jun 2010 15:56:38 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100621155638.19924.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/44611] Including and hides ::signbit function In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "redi at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg02062.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 15:56 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > To be honest, I have zero doubts about nullptr_t: nowhere 18.2 hints at > providing it in the global namespace, per se. [depr.c.headers]/3 "The header assuredly provides the same declarations and definitions within the global namespace" Note "the same declarations", not "the subset of declarations defined in the C standard" > About signbit, if it's a macro in C it has to be undefined in order to > implement the facility in c++0x, see 26.8/11. Really, I don't see how > the macro and the template can co-exist: "The templates defined in > replace the C macros with the same names" and the templates are specified in > namespace std. I agree the macro and template can't co-exist, but the template could be available as both std::signbit and ::signbit, and I think that's required by appendix D. I agree this isn't ideal, and DR456 tried to help, I don't think DR456 goes far enough in relaxing the requirements on implementations. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44611