> Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > >I had to use the following hack to allow this > >bit to go through my g++ compiler. > > > >I'm using RedHat 8.0, so this gives me: > > > >[dimi@dimi wine.src]$ g++ --version > >g++ (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7) > >Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >This is free software; see the source for copying > conditions. There is NO > >warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A > PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > > Glad you included the warranty bit :-) > > > > >Any ideas what's wrong here, and how it can be fixed? > > > > > Not particularly, but I know I've seen other examples of g++ > being more > strict / particular > about structs than gcc. What error do you get? You could try > -E for the > preprocessor > output and search through it for DUMMYSTRUCTNAME ; it could > be being defined > earlier on or somewhere else in a way that confuses it here...
DUMMYSTRUCT is defined as nothing if the compiler supports nameless structs. GNU C++ was mistakenly believed by me to support nameless structs. I didn't check however, I have check now and it seem like no version of GNU C++ does. :-( Not that it really needs to support it since you could get the same effect with "dummy" structs/classes and inheritence, but then I really can't see any particular reason not to support it since makes at least as much sense (if not more) in C++ to have unnamed structs as in C... Anyway, there is a patch in wine-patches that fixes the problem and since it as I said is always possible to "fake it" in C++ there is no great need to ask the GNU C++ developers the fix the problem either...