On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 11:45:46PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
> > > the C++ ABI *must* use __cxa_atexit. It is not the default in g++
> > > since not all C libraries suppor
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I said in my previous message, we are NOT losing __cxa_atexit.
> By dropping the current patch we are using the __cxa_atexit
> provided by glibc >= 2.2 instead of the one provided by gcc itself.
I understand that. The patch is still needed.
> The
"H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
> > the C++ ABI *must* use __cxa_atexit. It is not the default in g++
> > since not all C libraries support __cxa_atexit. However, GNU libc does
> > support this function, so Debian
Hello. Will you guys actually try building a gcc 3.1 without
the patch and testing a test case before you close this bug
again. Please reference the slew of quoted messages in the
debian-gcc mailing list from HJ Lu and Jakub Jelinek. The current
glibc (>= 2.2) provides __cxa_atexit and Linux and
Martin,
As I said in my previous message, we are NOT losing __cxa_atexit.
By dropping the current patch we are using the __cxa_atexit
provided by glibc >= 2.2 instead of the one provided by gcc itself.
That is what HJ and Jakub are trying to make debian understand.
The using gcc to provide __c
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 10:04:52AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > HJ Lu has requested that we regress out the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
> > patch.
>
> The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
> the C++ ABI *must* use __
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> HJ Lu has requested that we regress out the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
> patch.
The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
the C++ ABI *must* use __cxa_atexit. It is not the default in g++
since not all C libraries support __cxa
One other thing. When we drop the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
patch from gcc 3.1, we should change the debian/control to make
gcc build depend and depend on a glibc >= 2.2. This is the
requirement to ensure that __cxa_atexit is provided via
atexit from glibc.
Jack
--
To
HJ Lu has requested that we regress out the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
patch. He says that he doesn't intend to fix binutils to resolve
the breakage because all glibc > 2.2 have been providing a completely
usable __cxa_atexit via atexit making the use of -fuse-cxa-atexit
unncessary. That is also why I
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.1
> Version: 3.1-2
>
> In rebuilding binutils 2.12.90.0.7-1 with gcc-3.1-2 on debian ppc sid
> I discovered that this causes binutils to have a new unexpected failure
> in its testsuite...
>
> Running
> /home/howarth/debian-binutils/bi
Package: gcc-3.1
Version: 3.1-2
In rebuilding binutils 2.12.90.0.7-1 with gcc-3.1-2 on debian ppc sid
I discovered that this causes binutils to have a new unexpected failure
in its testsuite...
Running /home/howarth/debian-binutils/binutils-2.12.90.0.7/build-tree/binutils-2
.12.90.0.7/ld/testsuit
11 matches
Mail list logo
