Re: Problem with ltdl.h

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> > in C++
>> >    struct lt_dlhandle
>> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
>> >    typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
>> 
>> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by
>> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.

> So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.

Not really.  I'm just asking for better arguments to make me change my
mind about it :-)

> It does NOT appear
> to be valid C++ code

I've just managed to compile:

typedef struct foo foo;

with g++, version 2.95.2.  So it *is* valid C++.  I don't understand
why G++ is complaining about it.

If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
have a good reason to change it.  But first I want to understand the
problem, so that it can at least be documented.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me