On 22/03/16 20:38 +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 22.03.2016 20:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22/03/16 18:29 +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes. Maybe changing concept_check.h would be better, because
I see 3 different instances of bits/c++config.h:
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/fpu/bits/c++config.h
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/bits/c++config.h
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/thumb/bits/c++config.h
But they're all generated from the same include/bits/c++config in the
source tree, so that shouldn't matter.
while I only see one use of _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS:
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/bits/concept_check.h
I'm fine with changing it there. We should also document that the
macro doesn't do anything for freestanding implementations.
Done. Attached is a new version of my patch with a small
documentation update. I just used your wording if you don't mind.
Please say "has no effect" rather than "doesn't do anything".
Is it Ok for trunk when boot-strap and regression-testing completed?
OK, thanks.
Thanks
Bernd.
2016-03-22 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
* include/Makefile.am (install-freestanding-headers): Add
concept_check.h and move.h to the installed headers.
* include/Makefile.in: Regenerated.
* include/bits/concept_check.h: Ignore _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS for
freestanding implementations.
* doc/html/manual/using_macros.html (_GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS): Mention
that this macro doesn't do anything for freestanding implementaions.
The HTML files are generated, so typically the changelog would say
it's regenerated. I assume you edited by hand, but it's still not
necessary to repeat the same thing for both the xml original and
generated html, one of them should be "Likewise".
* doc/xml/manual/using.xml (_GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS): Mention
that this macro doesn't do anything for freestanding implementaions.
