From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Oct 6 10:20: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C729815708 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id KAA33753; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910061720.KAA33753@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Thomas David Rivers Subject: Re: bin/13383 sys/netinet/in.h violates C++ spec. Reply-To: Thomas David Rivers Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/13383; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Thomas David Rivers To: n@nectar.com, rivers@dignus.com Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/13383 sys/netinet/in.h violates C++ spec. Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:19:13 -0400 (EDT) > > On 6 October 1999 at 7:01, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > > I believe (I could be wrong) that all extern "C" does is affect > > the linkage of functions declared in the extern "C" block. > [snip] > > I think you are right, that's why I hedged with ``whatever''. The > system C headers have to be handled in some manner by the C++ > compiler... the mechanism is probably ``up to the implementation''. > > > I have a .PDF version of the C++ standard here that I can check > > later. > > That would be great if you can look, just to satisfy curiosity. But > like I mentioned, this issue seems to have been resolved with gcc > 2.95.1, though I could have missed something that Justin found. > I think gcc 2.95.1 "improved" it's standards conformance. It is now diagnosing errors previous versions didn't. Could that be the issue? - Dave R. - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message