>> I get the > > following testsuite regressions on Solaris 10/x86: > > > > FAIL: 30_threads/async/54297.cc (test for excess errors) > > WARNING: 30_threads/async/54297.cc compilation failed to produce > > executable FAIL: 30_threads/condition_variable_any/53830.cc (test > > for excess errors) WARNING: > > 30_threads/condition_variable_any/53830.cc compilation failed to > > produ e executable FAIL: 30_threads/this_thread/3.cc (test for > > excess errors) WARNING: 30_threads/this_thread/3.cc compilation > > failed to produce executable FAIL: 30_threads/this_thread/4.cc > > (test for excess errors) WARNING: 30_threads/this_thread/4.cc > > compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: > > 30_threads/thread/native_handle/cancel.cc (test for excess errors) > > WARNING: 30_threads/thread/native_handle/cancel.cc compilation > > failed to produc e executable > > > > All of them have the same root cause: > > > > Excess errors: > > Undefined first referenced > > symbol in file > > nanosleep /var/tmp//ccQhmiwd.o (symbol > > belongs to implicit dependency /lib/librt.so.1) ld: fatal: symbol > > referencing errors. No output written to ./54297.exe collect2: > > error: ld returned 1 exit status > > > > It seems that now every single C++ program needs to be linked with > > -lrt, not only libstdc++.so. This will also happen on Solaris 9 > > (bootstrap still running), while on Solaris 11 nanosleep and the > > others were integrated into libc.so.1.
So you'll need conditional LDFLAGS for solaris 9 and 10 only? > > Speaking of Solaris 9, there's another caveat: unlike Solaris 10 > > and up, CLOCK_MONOTONIC isn't defined, while the equivalent > > non-standard CLOCK_HIGHRES is. Instead of handling this in > > libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/chrono.cc directly, I've chosen the following > > route which allows libstdc++ to build on Solaris 9: > > > > 2013-05-22 Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> > > > > * config/os/solaris/solaris2.9/os_defines.h > > [!CLOCK_MONOTONIC] (CLOCK_MONOTONIC): Define. > > The Solaris 9 (i386-pc-solaris2.9) bootstrap has now completed > successfully, so the patch above seems to be sound. Ok for mainline? This is ok.Thanks! -benjamin
