Re: [htdig-dev] Re: gcc 3.1

[Edward A. <ep...@do...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Gilles Detillieux wrote:

>>>>Another problem I found was the use of deprecated headers.  Instead of
>>>><foo.h> newer compilers would prefer you to use <foo>

>>>Yes, and lots of people have older compilers that don't like the <foo>
>>>notation.
>>
>>Even today?

>Would it surprise you to learn that I still regularly build ht://Dig
>with gcc version 2.7.2.1?

I thought that gcc 2.7.2 was new enough to support the <foo> include
notation, but maybe this is not the case.

>The ".h" in header file names is a very well established, decades-old
>standard that's not going to disappear overnight.  It's cool that newer
>compilers make the .h optional, but that some of these compilers now
>give warning messages, or even error messages, when the .h is there is,
>in my opinion, a capricious and poorly thought-out deviation from this
>established standard.

The newer compilers are just trying to follow the C++ standard, you
can't fault them for that.  Giving a fatal error for the foo.h form is a
bit much I agree, but a warning message is reasonable.  The problem here
is that the configure script is very touchy and thinks the
compiler warning means that <fstream.h> won't work.

- -- 
Ed Avis <ep...@do...>
Finger for PGP key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8wD2TIMp73jhGogoRAlsgAJoCnD3bxvHUN7LkTHU4uT92bPjY6wCffXxs
BxWOjEXqHM9Wm5HRquZBk6M=
=Ti8X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----