On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:57:57AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> > ? There are also some comments about stdarg.h and stdio.h ordering, >> > dunno what it comes from and if it is still relevant when we require >> > C++ compiler. >> >> I think we should simply discourage people from using sstream for >> example. > > That would be my preference too of course, unfortunately Bernd chose to use > it everywhere (grep '<<' nvptx.c'). > >> But I don't see how we can live without system.h with all the weird >> host systems still around - thus your solution above will very likely >> not work. > > Well, I wasn't suggesting without system.h, I was suggesting to include > config.h first (that is required anyway), then C++ STL headers, then > system.h and then other GCC headers.
I'm quite sure that we'll find a system where that won't work? But sure - maybe it's worth a try... Richard. >> Eventually we can split system.h into a c-system.h and cxx-system.h >> so we can distinguish between uses in files compiled with a C and >> a C++ compiler? > > That wouldn't help here. > > Jakub
