http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Ruben Van Boxem changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #118 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
12:21:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #117)
> Any chance of this being backported to older branches? Seems quite useful for
> the future.
I don't think this (very good, but quite major) change qual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #119 from Paolo Carlini
2011-09-28 12:23:51 UTC ---
If you ask me, no way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #120 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-09-28 13:58:03 UTC ---
OK, somewhat understandable to keep evil legacy code compiling.
Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct define
if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #121 from Marc Glisse
2011-09-28 14:20:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
> Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct
> define
> if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping the old behavior for -std=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #122 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
15:34:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
> Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct
> define
> if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping the old behavior for -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #123 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-31
19:34:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Oct 31 19:34:26 2011
New Revision: 180708
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180708
Log:
PR libstdc++/1773
* init.c (cpp_init_built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Bruce Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tortoise_74 at yahoo dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #125 from Paolo Carlini
2011-11-25 19:21:10 UTC ---
Something is wrong on your system. The normal output, which I can of course
reproduce in mainline, is "199711" or "201193" depending on the -std.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #126 from Paolo Carlini
2011-11-25 19:22:06 UTC ---
"201103" of course.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #127 from Bruce Adams 2011-11-26
12:10:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #126)
> "201103" of course.
Perhaps it is my misunderstanding. I assume __cpluscplus is defined by the
compiler. Could it come from a system header or system libra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #128 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-26
12:30:25 UTC ---
Your test script runs blah twice, but you probably meant to run blah2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #129 from Bruce Adams 2011-11-29
10:49:08 UTC ---
doh! You are entirely right. It works just fine on the 2019 snapshot.
Sorry for wasting time there. I was too fast on the email trigger. Mea culpa.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #71 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-07
15:57:59 UTC ---
N.B. The latest C++0x draft, N3042, specifies the value 201103L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at CeBiTec dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-07 19:05:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #72 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-03-07 16:38:06 UTC ---
> If I remember correctly, mostly Solaris issues prevented us from defining
> __cplusplus to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #74 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-07
19:21:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #73)
> > asking him to play a bit with the
> > straightforward cpp_init_builtins patch defining __cplusplus to 199711 for
> > c++98 (and 201103 in c++0x mode?)
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #75 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-07
19:58:24 UTC ---
For 4.7, if Rainer can help testing, we can certainly seriously attack and
resolve this issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #76 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-08 10:27:08 UTC ---
I admittedly haven't read the (excessively long) PR. If the Solaris
headers can only work with the Studio compilers, I'm certainly open for
a fixincludes solution.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #77 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-08
11:19:03 UTC ---
Great Rainer.
As soon as 4.6.0 branches I guess we should ask Marc to present on the
libstdc++ mailing list a concise summary of the various options, I encourage
you to follow this di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #78 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 15:44:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #77 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-03-08 11:19:03 UTC ---
> Great Rainer.
>
> As soon as 4.6.0 branches I guess we should ask Marc to present on the
> li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #79 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-11
16:09:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #70)
> - needs to remove the overloads on linkage (like bsearch, qsort) in the
> solaris
> headers because g++ is broken there.
So it's linked to from here, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.v.a at ngs dot ru
--- Comment #80 from __vic 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #82 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 11:32:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #81 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 09:52:11 UTC ---
> Marc and Rainer, if you have proposals for Solaris, I think this is the right
> time for 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #83 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-21
12:08:32 UTC ---
Ok, thus I marked 30112 as blocking this, I'll try to raise its priority.
Otherwise Rainer, ok, in terms of producing an actual patch I was addressing
mostly Marc, but, unless I'm badl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #84 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:14:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #83 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 12:08:32 UTC ---
> Ok, thus I marked 30112 as blocking this, I'll try to raise its priority.
Fine, thanks.
> O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #85 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-21
12:34:21 UTC ---
Fair enough, and I should really find the time to go again through the entire
trail. Just wanted to add that for a C header to be 'C++ ready' is a rather
vaguely defined notion, thus,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #86 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:44:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #85 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 12:34:21 UTC ---
> Fair enough, and I should really find the time to go again through the entire
> trail. Just w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #87 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-22
21:49:49 UTC ---
Now the pragma issue is solved. Good. I don't know Rainer if that means we can
do something, I'm afraid it surfaced only as one of the last stumbling blocks
in your analysis...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #88 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-25 17:02:45 UTC ---
> --- Comment #87 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-22 21:49:49 UTC ---
> Now the pragma issue is solved. Good. I don't know Rainer if that means we can
> do something
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #89 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-25
17:14:13 UTC ---
Ok, thanks. I'm afraid Jon will not be able to contribute much over the next
few weeks, in the meanwhile I'll try to find the time to go through that old
message of yours to the mailin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #90 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
20:19:42 UTC ---
How does one go about reporting a bug in solaris? In Solaris 11, with
-std=c++** (as opposed to gnu++**), __cplusplus=199711L and without -m64 or
-pthreads, iso/stdio_iso.h doesn't decla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #91 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
21:02:20 UTC ---
solaris also provides the pow(*,int) overloads (see DR550). Should these be
fixincluded out? On the other hand, solaris doesn't provide the cos(int)
overload, so cos(0) fails as ambiguou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #92 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
21:08:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 24874
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24874
for Solaris 11
Still some bugs. And I didn't include the patch to mangle std::tm/ldiv_t/... as
if they
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #93 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-30
21:15:30 UTC ---
If we can converge, with Rainer' help too, to something working at least on
current Solaris (besides Linux), I'm pretty sure we'll be able to deliver it in
4.7.0!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #94 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-30
23:16:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #92)
> Created attachment 24874 [details]
> for Solaris 11
If I manually fixinclude the getc problem and the pow declarations, the only
unexpected testsuite failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #95 from Marc Glisse 2011-07-31
14:03:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 24877
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24877
More solaris fixinclude
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #96 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-01 12:31:54 UTC ---
> --- Comment #90 from Marc Glisse
> 2011-07-30 20:19:42 UTC ---
> How does one go about reporting a bug in solaris? In Solaris 11, with
Not anymore since Oracle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #97 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-01 12:52:50 UTC ---
> --- Comment #91 from Marc Glisse
> 2011-07-30 21:02:20 UTC ---
> solaris also provides the pow(*,int) overloads (see DR550). Should these be
> fixincluded out?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #98 from Marc Glisse 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 like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24877|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #100 from Marc Glisse
2011-08-01 16:17:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 24884
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24884
Alter mangling of std::tm and std::ldiv_t
And I attach a patch that mangles std::tm as ::tm, and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #101 from Paolo Carlini
2011-08-03 10:02:44 UTC ---
Thanks Marc. Thus, it seems to me that Rainer should have a look to the
fixincludes, double check make sense to him, aren't library bits and should be
sorted out between you two.
Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #102 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-03 15:12:29 UTC ---
> --- Comment #101 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-08-03 10:02:44 UTC ---
> Thanks Marc. Thus, it seems to me that Rainer should have a look to the
> fixincludes, doub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #103 from Marc Glisse
2011-08-03 15:52:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #102)
> What would help enormously for this would be a complete justification
> for the individual fixes:
Of course. I tried to keep the fixincludes to the minimum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Andrew Paprocki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at ishiboo dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #105 from Andrew Paprocki 2011-08-03
20:26:17 UTC ---
$ uname -a
SunOS sun 5.10 Generic_137111-08 sun4v sparc SUNW,T5240 Solaris
$ CC -V
CC: Sun C++ 5.10 SunOS_sparc 128228-10 2010/08/18
$ g++ -dumpversion
4.5.2
$ cat > foo.cpp
#includ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #106 from Marc Glisse
2011-08-03 21:51:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #96)
> I could trace this to g++ defining __STRICT_ANSI__ for
> -std=c++98/c++0x. defines _STRICT_STDC in this
> case, which hides the !_REENTRANT && !_LP64 && !_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24874|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #108 from Paolo Carlini
2011-08-04 14:40:21 UTC ---
Excellent. Can we sort out separately with C++ front-end people like Jason this
mangling (and demangling too, I suppose) issue? If I understand correctly it's
something which we are g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #109 from Marc Glisse
2011-08-04 15:21:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #108)
> Excellent. Can we sort out separately with C++ front-end people like Jason
> this
> mangling (and demangling too, I suppose) issue?
Yes. There are indepen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #110 from Paolo Carlini
2011-08-04 15:29:58 UTC ---
> Yes. There are independent pieces:
> *fixincludes
> *libstdc++
> *mangling
>
> and libcpp is the big red button that can only be pressed at the end. None of
> the changes should ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #111 from Marc Glisse
2011-08-04 15:38:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #110)
> > Ah, no. It is something we only need if we want to keep binary compatibility
> > between __cplusplus=1 and __cplusplus=199711L binaries on Solaris. As soo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24884|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #113 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 12:56:20 UTC ---
As you've probably seen, I've cleaned up and tested Marc's patches over
the weekend, threw some more testing (Solaris 8/9/10) in yesterday,
and posted the results
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #114 from Rainer Orth 2011-08-18 17:29:14
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Aug 18 17:29:10 2011
New Revision: 177877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177877
Log:
Properly define __cplusplus (PR libstdc++-v3/1773)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #116 from Paolo Carlini
2011-08-21 22:02:23 UTC ---
Thank you Rainer, and Marc, for the huge analysis and programming and testing
effort.
--- Comment #68 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 09:49 ---
(In reply to comment #63)
>
> Based on Solaris 11 x86, I don't see a way for say cstdlib to have only the
> namespace std versions of functions, and not also the global scoped ones. This
> is a problem. The way I read
--- Comment #69 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-29 09:53
---
For testing, I would suggest also involving Rainer, now he is quite active on
Solaris.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #70 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-04-29
10:27 ---
(In reply to comment #68)
> (In reply to comment #63)
> >
> > Based on Solaris 11 x86, I don't see a way for say cstdlib to have only the
> > namespace std versions of functions, and not also the global sco
--- Comment #67 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2008-12-19 11:45 ---
Sorry to come back to this again. With C++0x just around the corner, is there
any chance of getting this fixed, seeing as I expect this should be the
standard way of checking if we are in conforming C++0x mode, when i
--- Comment #58 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 17:32 ---
Request to re-assign to me.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #59 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-03-28 17:43 ---
Subject: Re: __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Request to re-assign to me.
Please, go ahead :-)
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Comment #60 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 17:48 ---
Mine.
Current libcpp patch only is:
Index: init.c
===
--- init.c (revision 123196)
+++ init.c (working copy)
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@
}
i
--- Comment #61 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 17:49 ---
mine, try two
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|gdr at
--- Comment #62 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-03-28 17:54 ---
Subject: Re: __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #60 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 17:48
---
|
| Mine.
|
| Curr
--- Comment #63 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 18:18 ---
There is no fix a the moment.
However, I'm working on speculative fixes for newlib and linux, which are
predicated on the correct __cplusplus values. I may get to solaris too, if my
sanity stretches that far, or I m
--- Comment #64 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2007-03-29
12:29 ---
(In reply to comment #63)
> However, I'm working on speculative fixes for newlib and linux, which are
> predicated on the correct __cplusplus values. I may get to solaris too, if my
> sanity stretches that f
--- Comment #65 from bkoz at redhat dot com 2007-04-02 09:49 ---
Subject: Re: __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L
> Weird, when solaris is the easiest one.
That's certainly a matter of perspective.
>> Based on Solaris 11 x86, I don't see a way for say cstdlib to have only th
--- Comment #66 from bss03 at volumehost dot net 2007-08-19 01:51 ---
Subject:
Any progress on this? I just hit this (6 year old) bug today. Surely,
there's got to be some possible fix for linux-2.6 (my current OS) that
doesn't cause severe regressions in Solaris?
Anyway, it looke
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-03-29 19:19
---
A friend of mine was recently caught by this bug.. is there any chance it could
be fixed now? or is there still some problem holding it up (or just no-one
cares?). Although I am by no means certain, I imagine
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-03-29 21:55 ---
Subject: Re: __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| A friend of mine was recently caught by this bug.. is there any
| chance it could
--- Comment #55 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-05-09
13:55 ---
A few remarks on (really) defining __cplusplus to 199711L on solaris.
One issue I already mentionned in libstdc++/27340 is some conflicts on names
like std::__cos.
An other issue is the fact that solaris (
--- Comment #56 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2006-05-09
14:24 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it in c++config.h for solaris 8
Out of curiosity, why not deal with __cplusplus the same way as __STDC__ (0 for
standard headers and
--- Comment #57 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-09 15:15
---
Subject: Re: __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L
"marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #30)
| > Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it i
--- Comment #29 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 01:41
---
The following patch implements the suggested solution.
Is it correct?
I don't have access to any version of Solaris to check.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #30 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 01:42
---
Created an attachment (id=10303)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10303&action=view)
Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it in c++config.h for solaris 8
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #31 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-21 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Created an attachment (id=10303)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10303&action=view) [edit]
> Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it in c++config.h for solaris 8
As-
--- Comment #32 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 12:26
---
Yes, I'll take a shot at this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #33 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 13:26
---
Created an attachment (id=10307)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10307&action=view)
Defines __cplusplus to 199711L and overrides it for solaris 8 *only*
Please see comment #33 before apply
--- Comment #34 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 13:29
---
I attached a patch containing Paolo's suggestions.
It was produced with svn diff -x -up after an svn copy like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc] svn copy libstdc++-v3/config/os/solaris/solaris2.{7,8}
"svn diff" d
--- Comment #35 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-21 13:35 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> I attached a patch containing Paolo's suggestions.
Thanks. Looks fine to me. If Eric could test it on his Solaris machines it
would be great (remember the svn copy! ;) ...
Before finally comm
--- Comment #36 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:59
---
> Thanks. Looks fine to me. If Eric could test it on his Solaris machines it
> would be great (remember the svn copy! ;) ...
Sure.
> Before finally committing it, probably we want to add a short comment before
--- Comment #37 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-11-21 15:11
---
> Yes, please *heavily* comment.
If this is approved, someone could do the copy on the relevant branches, then
I'd send a patch with better comments and changelog to the gcc-patches list.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #38 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-21 15:22 ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> > Yes, please *heavily* comment.
>
> If this is approved, someone could do the copy on the relevant branches, then
> I'd send a patch with better comments and changelog to the gcc-patches list.
--- Comment #39 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-29 10:24 ---
Eric, I'm sorry, any news?!? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #40 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 11:51
---
> Eric, I'm sorry, any news?!? Thanks.
Bootstrap was broken last week and I was away for the week-end... I'll need to
re-compute baseline results first, so maybe at the end of this week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #41 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-29 14:00 ---
Ok, agreed. I'm eager to finally close the oldest open libstdc++ PR... ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #42 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 16:34
---
Solaris 8 (32-bit compiler):
gmake[3]: Entering directory
`/opt/build/eric/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libstdc++-v3'
Making all in include
gmake[4]: Entering directory
`/opt/build/eric/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libs
--- Comment #43 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-04 16:43 ---
Hummm, probably there is something fundamentally wrong in the approach, because
Solaris 8, at least, is supposed to not change at all, i.e., __cplusplus ==
1...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #44 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-04 17:11 ---
Eric, as regards Solaris, 8, I think you forgot to do the svn copy, as per
Comment #34 (and # 35 ;) Still, Solaris 9 and 10 are not fine, sigh, I'll try
to look a bit more into that. Thanks, anyway.
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #45 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 19:31
---
> Eric, as regards Solaris, 8, I think you forgot to do the svn copy, as per
> Comment #34 (and # 35 ;)
Ah, sure, thanks. Now I get:
/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc
-n
--- Comment #46 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-04 19:46 ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> > Eric, as regards Solaris, 8, I think you forgot to do the svn copy, as per
> > Comment #34 (and # 35 ;)
>
> Ah, sure, thanks. Now I get:
[snip]
> /home/eric/svn/gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/
--- Comment #47 from pedro dot lamarao at mndfck dot org 2005-12-04 20:11
---
Any reason why libsupc++ can't include the stuff in config/ ?
I'm interested in seeing this bug go, I'd work on it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #48 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-04 20:20 ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> Any reason why libsupc++ can't include the stuff in config/ ?
> I'm interested in seeing this bug go, I'd work on it.
I'm also interested, of course. In principle, libspuc++ can certainly do th
--- Comment #49 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-04 20:29 ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> (In reply to comment #47)
> > Any reason why libsupc++ can't include the stuff in config/ ?
> > I'm interested in seeing this bug go, I'd work on it.
>
> I'm also interested, of course. In prin
--- Comment #50 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-04 20:52 ---
But there is something I don't understand at all: after a recent patch from
Benjamin, eh_globals.cc now does include *first*! Therefore
the problem seems different. At the beginning of eh_globals.cc __cplusplus is
used bu
--- Comment #51 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 21:01
---
> But there is something I don't understand at all: after a recent patch from
> Benjamin, eh_globals.cc now does include *first*! Therefore
> the problem seems different. At the beginning of eh_globals.cc __cplu
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
