From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79319 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2015 19:32:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 79294 invoked by uid 89); 3 Sep 2015 19:32:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:32:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E72C0AAB00; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-43.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.43]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t83JW1Gi011145; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:32:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 20:40:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Wakely To: Martin Sebor Cc: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch] libstdc++/65473 Make define libstdc++ version macros. Message-ID: <20150903193201.GV2631@redhat.com> References: <20150903105847.GN2631@redhat.com> <55E89DE4.8030609@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55E89DE4.8030609@gmail.com> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00311.txt.bz2 On 03/09/15 13:22 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: >On 09/03/2015 04:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>This change would allow including to be used to check for >>__GLIBCXX__ and detect whether youre using libstdc++ or not. Howard >>Hinnant recommends including that header for libc++ because it has no >>other effects in C++. >> >>We could make every header include so that >>any of them can be used, but I can't be bothered doing that change! >>This makes it work for the one header that is recommended to be used, >>but of course that doesn't help people using older versions of >>libstdc++, who still need to include some other header. >> >>Is this worth doing? > >I'd say it's worth doing consistently, in every header. OK, I'll add it to the others as well.