http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #102 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-08-03 15:12:29 UTC ---
> --- Comment #101 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com>
> 2011-08-03 10:02:44 UTC ---
> Thanks Marc. Thus, it seems to me that Rainer should have a look to the
> fixincludes, double check make sense to him, aren't library bits and should be
> sorted out between you two.
What would help enormously for this would be a complete justification
for the individual fixes:
* Does a standard call for some specific declaration? If so, which one,
chapter and verse?
In such a case, it will be easier get Oracle's attention so the issue
is also fixed upstream. (If only C++ 2011, it might be a bit of a
tougher ride.)
* If this is a libstdc++ requirement not currently demanded by a
standard, would there be an alternative way to fix this inside
libstdc++? The reason I'm asking is that the OS headers tend to be a
moving target, and you may have to keep updating the fix to keep it
working.
Please keep in mind that my understanding of C++ is minimal, so what may
be obvious to you might not be to me. I'm not at all opposed to perform
fixincludes fixes, but if there are alternatives, they should at least
be considered.
Thanks.
Rainer
