Re:

[Loretta L. Grisham]

I could go on and on, but I won't. We have many programs the children love. But 
I would give them ALL up to keep my BORING noun program. I thank THE PARENT 
daily for her insight..

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Great news

I need a degre_ee in: 
*Accounting

*Business
*Criminal* justice
*Educ*ation
*Health
*Technology

There are no requ*ired tests, classes, books, or interviews!

Call* this number: 1*2*0*6-984-1672 (24 hours)

Ciao

Buford Black

I am enjoying eating in the river..
The gardners regret skiing well..
Hasn't Buddy ever liked swimming?.
Then I started 'teaching'. You know, I'm a good teacher. (Well, maybe just an 
average teacher, but you get the jist). I know what good teachers do. Or I thought I 
did. I sat with the children at the computer. When they pressed the IntelliKeys' 
keyboard or the Touch Window' and the computer said the word, I repeated the word 
and then expanded on the word. After they had pressed the same word several times, I 
said, "That's right, that's a cat, can you find the dog?? Suddenly, I would see 
the child's back get stiff, and before you knew it, he got up and left the computer. 
I didn't understand. Just a few seconds ago, he loved it. What happened?.
The janitor doesn't generally like praying..
Haven't the computer programmers already practiced shaving?.
Haven't you liked walking?.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: problems with g++-4.1

[Matthias Klose]

Alex Romosan writes:
> this program:
> 
> #include 
> #include 
> 
> struct A {
>   void* operator new(size_t alloc_size) {
>   printf("A::operator new()\n");
>   return malloc(alloc_size);
>   };
> 
>   void operator delete(void* p, size_t s) {
>   printf("A::delete %d\n", s);
>   };
> 
> 
>   A()  {printf("A constructing\n"); throw 2;};
> 
>   virtual ~A() {}
> 
> };
> 
> int
> main() {
>   try {
>   A* ap = new A;
>   delete ap;
>   }
>   catch(int e) {printf("caught %i\n",e); return 1;}
> }  
> 
> compiles okay with g++-4.0 but when i try to compile it with g++-4.1 i
> get:
> 
>  In destructor 'virtual A::~A()':
> 17: error: no suitable 'operator delete' for 'A'
>  In function 'int main()':
> 24: error: no suitable 'operator delete' for 'A'
> 25: error: no suitable 'operator delete' for 'A'
> 27: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
> 
> any ideas how to fix it?

we currently revert the patch for PR c++/26068 to work around PR c++/27884

Martin, maybe we can add a workaround in the Perl headers instead?

  Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: problems with g++-4.1

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-08 14:50]:
> Martin, maybe we can add a workaround in the Perl headers instead?

I'm sure bod could just remove the use of 'register' for a while.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: problems with g++-4.1

[Brendan O'Dea]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 03:44:46PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-08 14:50]:
>> Martin, maybe we can add a workaround in the Perl headers instead?
>
>I'm sure bod could just remove the use of 'register' for a while.

Sure I can, but...

I've just tested building libapt-pkg-perl, which is C++ and uses pTHX
(the macro for my_perl which includes register) in utils.c without
problems.

--bod


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#372152: g++-4.1: PR27935 appears to be unresolved (operator delete(void*, size_t) issue)

[Bruce Stephens]

Package: g++-4.1
Version: 4.1.1-2
Severity: normal

 describes what appears to be simply a size_t issue:

struct a
{
  void operator delete (void*, unsigned int);
  ~a();
};

void g(a *b)
{
  delete b;
}

fails to compile.  But of course size_t isn't necessarily unsigned int.

The bug has an attachment which compiles in g++-4.0, and I presume is
intended to compile in g++-4.1.  But now, it doesn't.

#include 

struct B {
virtual ~B() { }
void operator delete(void*, size_t);
};

The error is

test.cpp: In destructor 'virtual B::~B()':
test.cpp:4: error: no suitable 'operator delete' for 'B'

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages g++-4.1 depends on:
ii  gcc-4.1   4.1.1-2The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.1-base  4.1.1-2The GNU Compiler Collection (base 
ii  libc6 2.3.6-13   GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libstdc++6-4.1-dev4.1.1-2The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (d

g++-4.1 recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: problems with g++-4.1

[Matthias Klose]

Brendan O'Dea writes:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 03:44:46PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-08 14:50]:
> >> Martin, maybe we can add a workaround in the Perl headers instead?
> >
> >I'm sure bod could just remove the use of 'register' for a while.
> 
> Sure I can, but...
> 
> I've just tested building libapt-pkg-perl, which is C++ and uses pTHX
> (the macro for my_perl which includes register) in utils.c without
> problems.

yes, we reverted that patch, so that we don't fail on the 'register'
usage at the moment, so you currently don't see a failure.  You should
see one when building with a newer gcc-snapshot.

  Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]