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...)
