http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #98 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-08-01 13:03:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #97) > If there's wording in the C++ standard that suggests the cos(int) > overload should exist, I could file a bug with Oracle. Only in C++2011. So they will likely add it in a few years, protected with a different __cplusplus value. But in the meantime it will cause what some will see as a regression in gcc on solaris. (by the way, I will update my fixinclude patch to not always remove the pow overloads but only in C++0X mode, as done in cmath) > > In any case, as already mentioned, we'll have trouble with different > > versions > > of solaris providing different things in their headers. The solution of > > having > > __cplusplus as 199711L except for system headers where it is 1 seems easier. > > Given the mess with STDC_0_IN_SYSTEM_HEADERS, I'd avoid something like > this if at all possible. I guess the alternative is to live with inconsistencies between the various solaris releases (which Oracle itself seems happy to do with its compiler).
