Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:34 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > FWIW: IMO, NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C actually is an OS/libc feature ("Your
>> > system headers are c++ aware"), therefore it is hardly possible or
>> > useful to ever use "#define NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C" on "generic" targets
>> > (*-elf, *-coff etc.).
>>
>> I'm going to ask you to think again about that assessment, because
>> 'implicit extern C' mode is actually trouble if the headers *are* C++
>> aware
>
> The point is: You don't know, because you don't know which kind of
> headers/libc is using a user is going to build gcc against.
This is true. The question in my mind is which failure mode is worse,
and honestly I don't know.
zw
