Bug#119384: libgcj2/gij and java1-runtime

2001-11-20 Thread Ben Burton
(CCed to debian-java because it relates to the kaffe/testing thread.) Hi. If libgcj2 is going to provide java-virtual-machine, could you please also provide java1-runtime (as per proposed java policy)? Also it would be nice to provide an alternative for /usr/bin/java, since a number of java p

Re: gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Christopher C. Chimelis
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Phil Edwards wrote: > All true. Just as an addendum: if a user only needs support code (new, > delete, etc) and doesn't feel like linking against the full libstdc++, > the support code also exists in a separate library, libsupc++. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libs

Re: gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Phil Edwards
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the > new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, meaning that it could > satisfy the symbol without libstdc++ (I just checked...2.95.x's libgcc has > a

Re: gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Christopher C. Chimelis
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote: > Fair enough; it's just that "old" gcc never seemed to require that. > Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour. I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, mean

Re: gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Phil Edwards
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 05:39:12PM +, Jason Williams wrote: > Fair enough; it's just that "old" gcc never seemed to require that. > Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour. Yes. :-) Some library functions are implicitly called by the compiler/linker/runtime. Older versions of

Re: gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Jason Williams
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:19:47PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > I haven't had any problems with gcc-3.0 compiling or linking executables > (including C++). If you're using gcc-3.0 to compile C++ sources, then > you'll need to pass it at least -lstc++ at link time (and possibly quite > a

Re: gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Christopher C. Chimelis
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote: > 'lo, sorry to bother you. > > gcc 2.x compiles C++ source files fine, but gcc-3.0 doesn't. (g++-3.0 seems > to work okay). Is this a deliberate change? > > (trying to compile C++ with gcc-3.0 fails with undefined references to > new and delete) I ha

gcc-3.0 and C++

2001-11-20 Thread Jason Williams
'lo, sorry to bother you. gcc 2.x compiles C++ source files fine, but gcc-3.0 doesn't. (g++-3.0 seems to work okay). Is this a deliberate change? (trying to compile C++ with gcc-3.0 fails with undefined references to new and delete) -- "While you're technically correct, you are quite wrong" - J