Dave,
What's the bug? I can see cases where it would
be extremely useful to have multiple threads
processing a single input document, but you could
probably meet the requirement using the Xalan
DOM. From your comment below, I'd guess it's not
an easy fix?
On the 2.95.x support - I can see two options.
1. Put something in runConfigure that runs gcc
to determine a version number, and then use that
to define some variable that can be set in
Makefile.in.
2. Put the same change in the linux section of
configure.in to quickly run gcc with a small
input source that uses the templates and will
break with -fno-elide-constructors. Then set
the variables accordingly.
Personally I'd go with the second, even though
the history up until now appears to have been to
go with checks in runConfigure.
I don't think it's a hard thing to add in either
case.
My call would be number 2.
Cheers,
Berin
>
> From: David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: gcc 2.95.* support
> Date: 20/02/2003 3:28:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Berin,
>
> Weird, the using declarations broke 2.95.3? Thanks for catching that!
>
> I think we should still support those versions, but as you said, it will
> require some ugly stuff. What did you have in mind?
>
> By the way, I just realized there's a thread-safety bug in the new Xerces
> wrapper. I'm thinking maybe we can just declare it not thread-safe rather
> than fix the problem. I'm not sure how valuable that "feature" is any way.
> What do you think?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> Berin Lautenbach
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Xalan Developers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> om.au> cc: (bcc: David N
>Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)
> Subject: gcc 2.95.* support
>
> 02/19/2003 01:23
>
> AM
>
> Please respond
>
> to xalan-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
> What's the feeling on support for 2.95.3/4 in 1.5? I've just checked in
> a change to the GCC include file to disable "using" declerations for gcc
> < 3 as this appears to break the XPath Function headers. (Now compiles
> again!)
>
> However there is still the problem in the Makefile which is going to be
> interesting to work around. (Although we can do something fancy in
> runConfigure if we have to as a short term fix - ugly.)
>
> Cheers,
> Berin
>
>
>
>
>
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
