Travis Vitek wrote:
I came up with three solutions to STDCXX-509. I don't really like any of
them, but here goes.
Thanks for taking the time to work on this!
1. Conditionally compile the change so that it is enabled for
platforms
with _RWSTD_NO_OBJECT_MANGLING defined, leaving the ini
Original Message
Subject: [VOTE RESULT] graduate stdcxx to TLP
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The vote to recommend stdcxx
Greetings all.
Attached is a change that should address some of the issues in section
10. Someone else will need to double check that the state of the
additional platforms noted is as desired. I probably won't have time to
make any further changes in the near future.
--Andrew Black
Andrew Blac
Andrew Black wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Andrew Black wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
[snip]
CRT's, so the 11s builds are compiled with the same options as the 15s
(11d == 15d, 8s|d == 12s|d).
Ugh. That means we've been doing a whole bunch of redundant builds
on Windows.
I think it would be more a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-391?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Sebor updated STDCXX-391:
Severity: Cosmetic
Fix Version/s: (was: 4.2)
4.2.1
Since the Look a
I've made a few very modest updates to the history (formerly
acknowledgments) documentation pages to reflect the discussion
in the recent thread on the subject (http://tinyurl.com/ywt5ex).
Eventually, I would like us to provide some interesting detail
but that will take some time and effort. We mi
I have a few observations.
Section 4.2 doesn't mention the exec or gencat utilities. Section 4.4
references the old run_all.sh script, as does section 4.6. Section 4.6
also overlooks the Windows build directory structure. Section 6
predates the 'make install' target on unix, and doesn't cover
i
Martin Sebor wrote:
The 4.2.0 README is ready for review. Corrections, comments,
or suggestions for improvements are welcome.
Hit the Send button too soon... A link to the README might be helpful:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stdcxx/branches/4.2.0/README
Thanks
Martin
The 4.2.0 README is ready for review. Corrections, comments,
or suggestions for improvements are welcome.
Thanks
Martin
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Travis Vitek updated STDCXX-601:
Attachment: stdcxx-601.patch
20.auto.ptr.log
Attaching purify log showing error and
purify reports uninitialized memory read in 20.auto.ptr test
-
Key: STDCXX-601
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-601
Project: C++ Standard Library
Issue Type: Impro
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:52 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
Out of curiosity, how do you test this? (I tested by building
4.1.3 examples, repl
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535305
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-600:
-
Part of the problem is that we're defining classes that are defined in the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535304
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-600:
-
While switching the order the std::exception virtual members either way (b
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535303
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-600:
-
Switching the order of std::exception dtor and std::exception::what() (i.e
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-262?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535295
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-262:
-
Looks like the patch committed at rev 583667
(http://svn.apache.org/viewc
Yes.
Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> This sounds reasonable to me. Although I wonder, is there any reason
>> to have a number of ChangeLogs instead of just one at the top of the
>> tree?
>
>Not really. We had src/ChangeLog (but none of the others) and it
>hadn't occu
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535292
]
Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-600:
-
Enhancing the original test case to catch the exception and print out the
[gcc 4.0.1/Mac OS X] SIGABRT throwing an exception
--
Key: STDCXX-600
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-600
Project: C++ Standard Library
Issue Type: Bug
Components: 1
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Black closed STDCXX-109.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as fixed with the change made in
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=585143&v
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Andrew Black wrote:
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> [snip]
CRT's, so the 11s builds are compiled with the same options as the 15s
(11d == 15d, 8s|d == 12s|d).
>>> Ugh. That means we've been doing a whole bunch of redundant builds
>>> on Windows.
>>
>> I think it would be m
Andrew Black wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
[snip]
CRT's, so the 11s builds are compiled with the same options as the 15s
(11d == 15d, 8s|d == 12s|d).
Ugh. That means we've been doing a whole bunch of redundant builds
on Windows.
I think it would be more accurate to say that some of the builds ha
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:32 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
>
> Farid Zaripov wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PR
> -Original Message-
> From: Farid Zaripov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:24 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesd
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:52 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
Out of curiosity, how do you test this? (I tested by building
4.1.3 examples, repl
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:52 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
> Out of curiosity, how do you test this? (I tested by building
> 4.1.3 examples, replacing the 4.
Martin Sebor wrote:
[snip]
>> CRT's, so the 11s builds are compiled with the same options as the 15s
>> (11d == 15d, 8s|d == 12s|d).
>
> Ugh. That means we've been doing a whole bunch of redundant builds
> on Windows.
I think it would be more accurate to say that some of the builds have
been misl
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:45 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: __rw_once warnings in non-reentrant Windows builds?
I'm not certain this is relevant, but MSVC 8.0 doesn't
supp
Andrew Black wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: ablack
Date: Tue Oct 16 06:54:59 2007
New Revision: 585143
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=585143&view=rev
Log:
2007-10-15 Andrew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
STDCXX-109
* etc/config/makefile.rules ($(CATFILE)):
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:45 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: __rw_once warnings in non-reentrant Windows builds?
>
> I'm not certain this is relevant, but MSVC 8.0 doesn't
> support non-
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Farid Zaripov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:39 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tues
> -Original Message-
> From: Farid Zaripov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:43 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Farid Zaripov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tues
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:38 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
Regarding binary compatibility, after upgrading from 4.1.3 to the
latest 4.2.0 I'm
I'm not certain this is relevant, but MSVC 8.0 doesn't support
non-reentrant builds, at least where compiler switches are concerned.
(MSVC 7.1 did support non-reentrant builds, but only when linked
statically). By compiler switches, I'm referencing the /ML(d), /MT(d),
and /MD(d) family of switches
> -Original Message-
> From: Farid Zaripov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesd
Martin Sebor wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Author: ablack
>> Date: Tue Oct 16 06:54:59 2007
>> New Revision: 585143
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=585143&view=rev
>> Log:
>> 2007-10-15 Andrew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> STDCXX-109
>> * etc/config/makefile.rules ($(CATFILE
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:38 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 4.2.0-rc-6, final candidate
>
> > Regarding binary compatibility, after upgrading from 4.1.3 to the
> > latest 4.2.0 I'm gett
In a manual 11d build I just did with MSVC 8.0 I'm seeing warning
C4297: 'function assumed not to throw an exception but does' for
__rw_once(). When I double-click on the warning in the debugger
output window it brings up the definition of __rw_once() that's
guarded by #ifdef _RWSTD_REENTRANT (it
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:31 AM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: -nostdinc++ gcc option is required?
As for gcc, the all configuration tests which are uses typeid
operator are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: ablack
Date: Tue Oct 16 06:54:59 2007
New Revision: 585143
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=585143&view=rev
Log:
2007-10-15 Andrew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
STDCXX-109
* etc/config/makefile.rules ($(CATFILE)): Make failure to execute
the ge
Mark Brown wrote:
Martin,
This sounds reasonable to me. Although I wonder, is there any reason
to have a number of ChangeLogs instead of just one at the top of the
tree?
Not really. We had src/ChangeLog (but none of the others) and it
hadn't occurred to me that one would be sufficient when I c
Mark Brown wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
After dispatching the remaining issues scheduled for 4.2.0(*) I'd
like to merge the few outstanding minor fixes and docs changes to
4.2.0 and create the (hopefully) final release candidate at the
end of the day (US/Mountain) tomorrow. If anyone has any conce
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:31 AM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: -nostdinc++ gcc option is required?
>
> > As for gcc, the all configuration tests which are uses typeid
> > operator are fai
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-596?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535228
]
Farid Zaripov commented on STDCXX-596:
--
Commited: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=585116&view=rev
> purify rep
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:14 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [Fwd: svn commit: r584880 - in
> /incubator/stdcxx/trunk/etc/config/src:
> NO_OBJECT_MANGLING.cpp object_mangling_imp.cpp]
>
> H
45 matches
Mail list logo
