GCC include files conundrum.
dgilbert at dclg.ca
Mon Mar 15 06:38:27 PST 2004
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Lang <langd-freebsd-hackers at leo.org> writes:
Daniel> Hi, David Gilbert wrote on Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 08:55:24PM
Daniel> -0500: [..]
>> I'll ignore the condescending tone for a momment. It's worth
>> noting that everything works by simply having a copy of strstream.h
>> in the backward directory. Maybe the right path to take here is to
>> include that file much as we include old versions of shared
Daniel> I disagree. Valid standards should be enforced. Providing
Daniel> compatibilty just keeps more and more non-compliant pieces of
Daniel> code around. The earlier authors and maintainers are forced to
Daniel> update their software to be standard-compliant the better.
Daniel> Even if it's painful and apparently unnecessary work for the
Daniel> moment. It is beneficial in the long run.
Daniel> This is just my general opinion on such things.
Well... there's a time and a place for this. To be mainstream, we
need to consider that compatibility is what attracts most people.
In this case, it appears that someone was coding to an earlier
standard ... not just hacking something together. The _real_ problem
here is incompatible langauge changes ... leading me to loose yet more
faith in C++ as a whole.
Daniel> In your particular case, maybe you could add a copy of
Daniel> strstream.h as a patch to the port into the build directory
Daniel> and reference it as "strstream.h" instead of <strstream.h>.
Daniel> Thus the system libstdc++ headers do not need to be polluted.
Finally a helpful idea I hadn't explored yet, thank-you.
|David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can only be |
|Mail: dave at daveg.ca | equal if and only if they |
|http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. |
More information about the freebsd-hackers