Rice distribution

Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini@oracle.com
Thu Sep 6 22:36:00 GMT 2012


Hi,

On 09/06/2012 11:58 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Also, well, we still have to make the final decision whether we want
>>> __rice_distribution or rice_distribution.
>> I didn't have time yesterday and don't know how tonight looks like.
>> I'll make the uglification changes latest tomorrow.
> Regarding uglification.
>
> I am on the fence on this one, with a preference to non-uglification.
> The reason is this: if this is offered as pure extension
> of GNU C++ and we indicate very clearly that user of this extension implies that
> certain names (the one we use in the implementation) are reserved,
> then we should
> be OK.  For this to work, we have to be disciplined in terms of not using our
> extension to implement standard entities in a way that uses non-uglified names.
> I suspect this is where troubles came from in the past.
I get your point, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure the issues in this 
area are so simple. In my opinion, conservatively, before adding further 
non-uglified names to that namespace we should find the time to 
re-analyze in detail:

     http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

and the full exchange linked therein. That said, I'm also on the fence, 
like you, I'm just trying to be conservative vs issues like the above.

Paolo.



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list