Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Anyway, given that there have been objections to the patch generally, >> I realise that the pre-approval is void. > > I think there's no controversy over the libstdc++ change, so let's put > that in. If nothing else, it makes the libstdc++ configury more > self-consistent; if we decide to change the overall strategy, then we > can do that all at once.
Well, Rask's patch would make the libstdc++ change unnecessary, so it seems premature to change libstdc++ now. (Not that I'm objecting to anyone else doing it. I'm just not comfortable doing it myself, especially since, on its own, it doesn't affect any of "my" targets.) Richard
