Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Hello, Thomas Schwinge, on Mon 28 Nov 2016 12:05:44 +0100, wrote: > > > In file included from /usr/include/errno.h:35:0, > > > from :1: > > > /usr/include/hurd.h: In function ‘int __hurd_fail(error_t)’: > > > /usr/include/hurd.h:60:13: error: invalid conversion fro

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Hi! On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:14:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, on Sat 26 Nov 2016 19:53:34 +0100, wrote: > > When changing the GDB source code to use kern_return_t (or int) instead > > of error_t, I still see hurd.h:__hurd_fail and > > hurd/signal.h:HURD_MSGPORT_RPC choke on t

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Brent W. Baccala, on Fri 25 Nov 2016 17:00:50 -1000, wrote: > In addition to what Thomas has described, the ports library is unusable with > C++ because struct port_info has a member named "class". I have just fixed it. > Also, the initializer syntax used in /usr/include/refcount.h is unusable wi

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Samuel Thibault, on Sun 27 Nov 2016 17:14:26 +0100, wrote: > > In file included from /usr/include/errno.h:35:0, > > from :1: > > /usr/include/hurd.h: In function ‘int __hurd_fail(error_t)’: > > /usr/include/hurd.h:60:13: error: invalid conversion from ‘int’ to > >

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Hello, Thomas Schwinge, on Sat 26 Nov 2016 19:53:34 +0100, wrote: > When changing the GDB source code to use kern_return_t (or int) instead > of error_t, I still see hurd.h:__hurd_fail and > hurd/signal.h:HURD_MSGPORT_RPC choke on their own error_t usage: > > $ echo -e '#include \n#include \n

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Hi! On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 13:36:22 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, on Fri 25 Nov 2016 12:46:33 +0100, wrote: > > Additionally to the issues Samuel pointed > > out in > > (still unresolved), > > ? > > I can include

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Thomas Schwinge, on Fri 25 Nov 2016 12:46:33 +0100, wrote: > Additionally to the issues Samuel pointed > out in > (still unresolved), ? I can include hurd/signal.h fine from c++. The second part of my patch was applied, and IIRC we

Re: C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > Motivation for bringing this up again: GDB has recently switched from > using a C to a C++ compiler. GDB, for obvious reasons, needs to access > low-level Hurd/Mach interfaces. > > I've also had problems compiling hurd code using

C++ vs. glibc/Hurd/Mach headers

Hi! Motivation for bringing this up again: GDB has recently switched from using a C to a C++ compiler. GDB, for obvious reasons, needs to access low-level Hurd/Mach interfaces. "GNU/Hurd headers don't pass c++" has been closed as "invalid". Additionally to