RE: Problem with ltdl.h

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

Oops, sending my previous mail just trigger our mail server to notify me of
the other mails :-)

Please forgive the unneeded noise.

        Bernard

PS: BTW renaming the struct to "struct lt_dlhandle_struct" or seems better
than renaming again the typedef, as lt_dlhandle is conveying the right
semantics (usually a HANDLE is a pointer to a descriptor of where to find
something).

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:    +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:    +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: address@hidden
                address@hidden
-------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Dautrevaux 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:39 AM
> To: 'Alexandre Oliva'; Kevin Atkinson
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: Problem with ltdl.h
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:53 PM
> > To: Kevin Atkinson
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> YES! this is valid; what's NOT is
> 
> typedef struct foo* foo;
>                   ^_______ notice the '*' there.
> 
> canopus{SoftWrks}: echo "typedef struct foo* foo;" > tst.cpp
> canopus{SoftWrks}: gcc -c tst.cpp
> tst.cpp:1: conflicting types for `typedef struct foo * foo'
> tst.cpp:1: previous declaration as `struct foo'
> canopus{SoftWrks}: 
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> ALL C++ comilers should choke on this. AND as I say in my 
> previous mail it is VERY misleading to typedef a pointer to 
> something with the same name as this something.
> 
> Of course, as I've also said earlier, I don't have the latest 
> CVS libtool, so I take for granted what the initial message 
> said, that is the offending code is
>     typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle;
> 
> If there is no '*', all is OK of course.
> 
> 
>       Bernard
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Bernard Dautrevaux
> Microprocess Ingenierie
> 97 bis, rue de Colombes
> 92400 COURBEVOIE
> FRANCE
> Tel:  +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
> Fax:  +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
> e-mail:       address@hidden
>               address@hidden
> -------------------------------------------- 
>