From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5101 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 23:54:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5087 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 23:53:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO disaster.jaj.com) (66.93.21.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2002 23:53:57 -0000 Received: (from phil@localhost) by disaster.jaj.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) id gBHNrt112975; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:53:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:31:00 -0000 From: Phil Edwards To: Matt Austern Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status Message-ID: <20021217185354.A12952@disaster.jaj.com> References: <20021217233955.GB2188@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from austern@apple.com on Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:47:31PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01091.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:47:31PM -0800, Matt Austern wrote: > On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 03:39 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > On the other hand, if you don't have a c99-compliant library, > > I wonder if you should be using -std=c99 at all. > > Should this be something we probe for during the > configure step? Unless you're building a cross > compiler, we can test to see if real C99 compliance > is possible. v3 is trying to do this now, to the limited extent of "C99 library features that can be useful in a C++98 library". An opportunity for code reuse! Phil -- I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met. - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002