On 05/14/2012 01:33 PM, Niall Douglas wrote: > Most distros bundle multiple versions of gcc due to this exact > problem with frequent bugs. Debian, at least, usually has the > previous version and for many years also had the latest from the 3.x > and indeed 2.x series. Well, Fedora doesn't. They only ship a 3.4 series compiler as an alternative (maybe to build qt3 apps or something?). But actually I like -std=C++0x, you know.
> Simply have your build chain wire in a non-default compiler by > excluding from a list of known broken gcc's. It's what my build > system does. Hm. How did you implement that? I mean, does the build chain build its own gcc if neccessary and install it to a well-defined path in the user's home directory? > On 14 May 2012 at 12:53, Jonas Wielicki wrote: >> Do you recommend to >> submit a bug report to the gcc folks on that one? > > I personally do. But getting a bug accepted by gcc isn't easy. You > may need to be prepared for them to be a bit caustic to you. I guessed so. Have to remind the discussion between linux kernel folks and gcc people over whether its a bug in the gcc when a null pointer derefenciation in the kernel opens a security hole ;). > A very small testcase is easiest. They don't like testcases bringing > in external libraries such as boost one bit. So be prepared to be > aggressive if needs be. Hm. I'm afraid that this bug is not easy to separate in a small testcase, because if it was evident, the fedora folks would've (a) filed a bug at the gcc or (b) put in a patch themselves but definetly (c) not shipped that compiler. >>> Also, try Clang. Clang seems to generate better >>> debug info for templates anyway. >> I'll have a look, thanks. Clang doesn't compile boost python 1.49 at all. Sadly. I guess I'll have to temporarily build a 4.6 gcc for myself, until that issue is fixed. -- Jonas _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
