Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/03/29/17:25:55
At 01:25 3/29/1998 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>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.
Or, as the path of least resistance, would it really be so hard for DJGPP to
change? I know it's against principles and all that, but would it kill us to
surround each `#define NULL 0' with `#ifndef NULL'?
>However, if nobody else cares, I'm willing to drop the subject, as I
>don't use C++ too much.
Same here.
Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net
- Raw text -