On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:10:33PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/06/2016 06:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > If building gcc as a C++11 program is supported, then it > > won't be possible to use these names as symbols for > > anything else anyway? > > Just found out the above is not true. Apparently I've > been stuck in C++98 for too long... Sorry about the noise. > > I was going to suggest to put this in include/ansidecl.h, > so that all C++ libraries / programs in binutils-gdb use the same > thing, instead of each reinventing the wheel, and I found > there's already something there: > > /* This is used to mark a class or virtual function as final. */ > #if __cplusplus >= 201103L > #define GCC_FINAL final > #elif GCC_VERSION >= 4007 > #define GCC_FINAL __final > #else > #define GCC_FINAL > #endif > > From: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00455.html > > Apparently the patch that actually uses that was reverted, > as I can't find any use.
Yeah, I wanted to use it to work around gdb not dealing well with stuff in the anon namespace, but somehow that broke aix, and some people objected and I haven't gotten back to it. > I like your names without the GCC_ prefix better though, > for the same reason of standardizing binutils-gdb + gcc > on the same symbols. I agree, though I'm not really sure when gdb / binutils stuff will support building as C++11. Trev > > > -- > Thanks, > Pedro Alves
