Am 2018-06-25 um 15:57 schrieb Rainer Orth:
Hi Franz,
so you are supposed to use "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64",
but at least a quick glance at the Sol10 headers shows that the additional
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE only makes a difference for fseeko/ftello. That still
right, that's als
Hi Franz,
> so you are supposed to use "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64",
> but at least a quick glance at the Sol10 headers shows that the additional
> -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE only makes a difference for fseeko/ftello. That still
right, that's also explained in lfcompile(7).
> doesn't ex
Am 2018-06-22 um 09:51 schrieb Rainer Orth:
Hi Franz,
No idea about possible problems, but isn't it usually recommended to use
either _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 or _LARGEFILE{64}_SOURCE=1, not both at the
same time?
quite the contrary: for regular largefile support, you're supposed to
use `getconf
Hi Franz,
> No idea about possible problems, but isn't it usually recommended to use
> either _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 or _LARGEFILE{64}_SOURCE=1, not both at the
> same time?
quite the contrary: for regular largefile support, you're supposed to
use `getconf LFS_CFLAGS', i.e. -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_F
Hi Jonathan,
> On 21/06/18 16:49 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>Hi Jonathan,
>>
>>> No objection to this patch, but I'll just note that we have
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091 suggesting we
>>> should use LFS for libstdc++ unconditionally.
>>
>>seems like a wise move to me. Th
Am 2018-06-21 um 16:17 schrieb Rainer Orth:
I recently found two libstdc++ testcases failing on some Solaris hosts
for 32-bit only:
FAIL: 27_io/filesystem/operations/space.cc execution test
FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/space.cc execution test
Both file in the same way:
terminate ca
On 21/06/18 16:49 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
No objection to this patch, but I'll just note that we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091 suggesting we
should use LFS for libstdc++ unconditionally.
seems like a wise move to me. The libstdc++.so ABI didn't change
Hi Jonathan,
> No objection to this patch, but I'll just note that we have
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091 suggesting we
> should use LFS for libstdc++ unconditionally.
seems like a wise move to me. The libstdc++.so ABI didn't change on
Solaris either (that possibility had c
On 21/06/18 16:17 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
I recently found two libstdc++ testcases failing on some Solaris hosts
for 32-bit only:
FAIL: 27_io/filesystem/operations/space.cc execution test
FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/space.cc execution test
Both file in the same way:
terminate ca
I recently found two libstdc++ testcases failing on some Solaris hosts
for 32-bit only:
FAIL: 27_io/filesystem/operations/space.cc execution test
FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/space.cc execution test
Both file in the same way:
terminate called after throwing an instance of
'std::file
10 matches
Mail list logo
