X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=mo lCMO3fzMjYhTxdc7EnrckAkTeD3myStgPocOn1ThneICuxqx6aNMaU39I71WEcr3 NPo4X9FFRqsNO03m4+nnBqxVt00/XRphXw/SGQq+wrwkjv8X6K+Iq+WfdFcgNxEk cY35gvBKW496XHxi1xDK3szBNpSzDGPrOaPEbHQ3I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=WpHRRDAT Y6S94lqwlpztIi5YUHE=; b=nTatvIdEgR68ZjISSInQWNrvMpR6MhI9p0yAWnD/ sAQvOHWunl7o060Vjb/MZsKH5GO3vShlt3yBsjPxMTfbxonLZhwFfh1Cv2AzPBvo 87PbuHBhxPpcWrMMswkDvfArthIFYR5M/yDv/Z9gyK7YWsY4LrZQ1lCJ0v2JFv7r LsA= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f45.google.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.86.135 with SMTP id p7mr27840711wjz.89.1430586194147; Sat, 02 May 2015 10:03:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554279F0 DOT 5040505 AT towo DOT net> <5543090D DOT 9030409 AT gmail DOT com> <55436D3A DOT 2050200 AT dronecode DOT org DOT uk> <5543BEAE DOT 3000703 AT towo DOT net> Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 19:03:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [64bit] cygwin-devel headers broken From: Csaba Raduly To: cygwin list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Michael Enright wrote: > When changing from compiler to compiler, even if it be just an OS > point version upgrade, implicit header inclusions go away all the > time. As a developer, I just shrug this off as one of the trade-offs > of choosing to develop in C or C++, which lack proper module systems. (snip) Please don't top-post. No need for a trade-off. Include-what-you-use ( http://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/ ) will tell exactly which headers are needed, so there's no need to rely on which header includes which. Csaba -- GCS a+ e++ d- C++ ULS$ L+$ !E- W++ P+++$ w++$ tv+ b++ DI D++ 5++ The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers. Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts. "Ok, it boots. Which means it must be bug-free and perfect. " -- Linus Torvalds "People disagree with me. I just ignore them." -- Linus Torvalds -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple