Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/03/29/05:34:55
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:
> > Yes. It's a good reason to fix the C++ library.
>
> It isn't broken.
> It only defines NULL when no included library defines NULL. When this
> header inclusion comes before the standard header inclusion, that
> standard header (here <stdlib.h>) will redefine NULL with of course a
> definition of its own, and this will produce this compiler warning. Only
> putting that standard header before the third party header will us get
> rid of that warning, since the third party header won't redefine NULL in
> this case.
IMHO, it is not nice to tell people to put their headers in some
particular order. I think we will be flooded by messages which refer
to this problem if it doesn't get fixed somehow. If the concensus is
that we want libstdc++ maintainers to fix their headers, let us
complain to them, the sooner the better.
However, if nobody else cares, I'm willing to drop the subject, as I
don't use C++ too much.
- Raw text -