[gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Zack Weinberg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 48 bytes --]


How do I get this posted to gcc-announce?

zw


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2872 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 220 bytes --]

Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org mailing list.

I'm sorry, your message (enclosed) was not accepted by the moderator.
If the moderator has made any comments, they are shown below.

[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1877 bytes --]

From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: #import, #pragma once to be removed in 3.4
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:49:19 -0800
Message-ID: <87lm0tjfsg.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>


So we had a discussion of the problems that PCH poses for #import,
which expanded to a discussion of the problems of #import and
#pragma once generally, which then pretty much wound down without any
middle ground being found between 'there must be some way to fix it'
and 'no, sorry, there isn't'.  I think that an executive decision is
required at this point, which falls to me as cpplib maintainer.

Accordingly: #import and #pragma once will be removed from FSF GCC in
3.4.  I will shortly send a patch to gcc-patches to implement that.

I have heard the concerns of the people who have problems with the
remaining mechanism for idempotent #include, i.e. wrapper #ifndefs.
I have a solution in mind, but I would first like to determine how
widespread these problems are.  Please reply to this message
(do NOT cc: gcc-announce) if you have experienced problems with
collisions between macro names used in wrapper #ifndefs, or any other
technical problem with this mechanism.  Please also advise if you
could not work around the problem by editing the offending headers.

zw

Re: [gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Jason Molenda]

The moderators are law@redhat.com and mark@codesourcery.com--one
of them apparently rejected the post (or made a mistake while
trying to approve it).

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:20:42PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> How do I get this posted to gcc-announce?
> 
> zw
> 

> Date: 6 Feb 2003 21:01:11 -0000
> From: gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org
> To: zack@codesourcery.com
> Subject: Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org
> 
> Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org mailing list.
> 
> I'm sorry, your message (enclosed) was not accepted by the moderator.
> If the moderator has made any comments, they are shown below.

> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: #import, #pragma once to be removed in 3.4
> From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:49:19 -0800
> 
> 
> So we had a discussion of the problems that PCH poses for #import,
> which expanded to a discussion of the problems of #import and
> #pragma once generally, which then pretty much wound down without any
> middle ground being found between 'there must be some way to fix it'
> and 'no, sorry, there isn't'.  I think that an executive decision is
> required at this point, which falls to me as cpplib maintainer.
> 
> Accordingly: #import and #pragma once will be removed from FSF GCC in
> 3.4.  I will shortly send a patch to gcc-patches to implement that.
> 
> I have heard the concerns of the people who have problems with the
> remaining mechanism for idempotent #include, i.e. wrapper #ifndefs.
> I have a solution in mind, but I would first like to determine how
> widespread these problems are.  Please reply to this message
> (do NOT cc: gcc-announce) if you have experienced problems with
> collisions between macro names used in wrapper #ifndefs, or any other
> technical problem with this mechanism.  Please also advise if you
> could not work around the problem by editing the offending headers.
> 
> zw

Re: [gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jason Molenda wrote:
> The moderators are law@redhat.com and mark@codesourcery.com--one
> of them apparently rejected the post (or made a mistake while
> trying to approve it).

How did you find this out? (Just curious, because I tried to do the
same, and it also found cgf, but probably looking in the qmail configs
using cat/vi was not the right way.)


BTW, I noticed a lot of cygnus.com addresses, especially law@cygnus.com
;-), in various config files; just as somebody once mentioned that
cygnus.com might stop working at some point...

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: [gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Jason Molenda]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:32:13PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jason Molenda wrote:
> > The moderators are law@redhat.com and mark@codesourcery.com--one
> > of them apparently rejected the post (or made a mistake while
> > trying to approve it).
> 
> How did you find this out? (Just curious, because I tried to do the
> same, and it also found cgf, but probably looking in the qmail configs
> using cat/vi was not the right way.)

ezmlm-list /qmail/lists-gcc/gcc-announce/mod

cgf was in there, but I knew there was zero chance that cgf would reject
a post to that list so I just skipped his name to simplify matters. :-)

> BTW, I noticed a lot of cygnus.com addresses, especially law@cygnus.com
> ;-), in various config files; just as somebody once mentioned that
> cygnus.com might stop working at some point...

Yeh, there's additive, it's not a big deal.  I suppose some really
motivated EvilDoer(c) could buy the cygnus.com domain and start
sending announcemenets to the announce lists as cgf@cygnus.com et
al, but that seems unlikely.

J

Re: [gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:36:32PM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:32:13PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jason Molenda wrote:
>> > The moderators are law@redhat.com and mark@codesourcery.com--one
>> > of them apparently rejected the post (or made a mistake while
>> > trying to approve it).
>> 
>> How did you find this out? (Just curious, because I tried to do the
>> same, and it also found cgf, but probably looking in the qmail configs
>> using cat/vi was not the right way.)
>
>ezmlm-list /qmail/lists-gcc/gcc-announce/mod
>
>cgf was in there, but I knew there was zero chance that cgf would reject
>a post to that list so I just skipped his name to simplify matters. :-)

Actually, I did reject it.  Doh.  There were a number of replies to the
3.2.1 announcement and I have been rejecting them rather than let them
sit around in the queue and suffer a rejection in a week or two.

Sorry, Zack.  If you resubmit the announcement, I will ignore it as usual
and let someone else approve it.

Apologies for the confusion.

cgf

Re: [gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Per Bothner]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> How do I get this posted to gcc-announce?

> Accordingly: #import and #pragma once will be removed from FSF GCC in
> 3.4.  I will shortly send a patch to gcc-patches to implement that.

Please don't - I object to this change.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/

Re: [gcc-announce-owner@gcc.gnu.org] Returned post for gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org

[Zack Weinberg]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

>
> Actually, I did reject it.  Doh.  There were a number of replies to the
> 3.2.1 announcement and I have been rejecting them rather than let them
> sit around in the queue and suffer a rejection in a week or two.
>
> Sorry, Zack.  If you resubmit the announcement, I will ignore it as usual
> and let someone else approve it.

Geoff has asked me to hold off pending a revision of the #include
mechanism that he is working on.  I will resubmit the announcement if
and when it becomes a sure thing.

zw