From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-398560-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14126 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2012 10:49:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 14112 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2012 10:49:01 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:48:49 +0000
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54249] [C++11] No ::nullptr_t in header <stddef.h>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54249-4-SCUMAUvEUq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00832.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54249

--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 10:48:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It's true however, that, as I mentioned already somewhere, in general our
> implementation doesn't have control over the underlying *.h headers.

Although it does have control over potential *.h headers it ships and puts
first in the include path (as it does for complex.h and fenv.h for instance).

> Thus, it seems mildly inconsistent to add things only to the *few* *.h
> headers over which we do have control.

Grab the low-hanging fruits?

(sorry Daniel, conversations seems to have a way to start when we don't want
them to...)