http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #103 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-08-03 15:52:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #102) > What would help enormously for this would be a complete justification > for the individual fixes: Of course. I tried to keep the fixincludes to the minimum. One fixes the issue with getc/getchar explained above. One removes the extern "C++" overloads of bsearch/qsort because of PR 2316 : Solaris is right to have those, but most compilers (wrongly) don't consider linkage (C vs C++) as part of the type and thus to them Solaris is defining the same function twice. One wraps the declarations of pow(*,int) with #ifdef so that they remain available in C++03 (Solaris is right to have them, section 26.5.6 of the standard) but they disappear in C++0X (to match section 26.8.9 of N3291). The first 2 are necessary. I believe the last one is not required (it should just cause one minor bug in C++0X) and can be reconsidered later if you prefer. I haven't tested the version of the fixinclude patch attached to the bug, I was going to do that once I get access to a Solaris 10 (we have one, but it takes a while to register so I can use it). I wrote the patch on S11, so I also wanted to get a look at the S10 headers to check for differences. > In such a case, it will be easier get Oracle's attention so the issue > is also fixed upstream. (If only C++ 2011, it might be a bit of a > tougher ride.) I guess Oracle will implement C++2011 at some point, no need to push them. The libstdc++ headers will need adjusting when that happens. The getc issue is worth reporting upstream though. > * If this is a libstdc++ requirement not currently demanded by a > standard, would there be an alternative way to fix this inside > libstdc++? The reason I'm asking is that the OS headers tend to be a > moving target, and you may have to keep updating the fix to keep it > working. I completely agree with this, but it looks hard without fixinclude. Note that I am not a fixinclude expert and it is possible the fixes could be written in a less fragile way. And I think one "c_fix_arg" is supposed to be "select" instead.
