Future evolution of c++config.h and _GLIBCXX_USE_LONG_LONG

[Matt Austern]

On Jan 11, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> I'm leaning toward choice 1: it's inelegant but probably safe.  
>> Anyone want to give me arguments in either direction, or suggest a 
>> third choice?
>
> Instinctively, I agree with you, and, furthermore:
>
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-08/msg00183.html

Thanks.  You're right, that's quite relevant.

I suppose another question that's implicit but that I didn't ask is: 
would it be a desirable feature to give users a way of getting a fully 
conforming C++ language/library implementation without having to 
reconfigure and reinstall?  Should there be a compiler switch that does 
that?

Please note that this is not a rhetorical question.  I'm not pushing 
for one answer or the other.  (It's also a question that's not 
tremendously relevant right now, since it's a little late in the gcc 
release cycle to add a new feature like that.)

			--Matt