On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:49:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >This isn't a question of precedence, which only affects the way an
> >expression is interpreted. It's strictly a problem of evaluation
> >order. Precedence determines how the expression is parsed, i.e.
>
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:26:40PM +0200, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> >Confidential:no
> >Synopsis:Linker error message is a triumph of misdirection
> >Severity:non-critical
> >Priority:low
> >Category:c++
> >Class: sw-bug
> >Release: 3.3.4 (Debian 1:3.3.4-6s
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> "Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When there isn't sufficient virtual memory, the compiler bails out,
> > giving an internal error message. When I kill some processes, the
> > error goes away.
>
> And what is th
> > When compiling this function, the following compilation error was reported:
> >
> > demo.cc:1: error: syntax error before `||' token
> >
> > As the problem is not occurring with another type of compiler and as the
> > identifier(s) aren't keywords
>
> In fact, they are in C++.
And you can
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 06:53:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:37:50PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 02:50:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Package: libstdc++6-doc
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > >
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 02:50:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Package: libstdc++6-doc
> Severity: wishlist
>
> It would be nice if libstdc++*-doc generated a doxygen tag file and
> installed it. This would allow other doxygen-using packages to
> generate proper cross-references to the libstdc
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:32:32PM +0100, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:14:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > > More to the point, it doesn't matter how it's implemented, and the user
> > > should not care. It only matters that
> > >
> > > std::bad_alloc foo;
>
close 236912
thanks
This bug report reinforces my opinion that bug reports consisting of
claims of nonconformance, but not accompanied by a testcase, should be
immediately closed.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:15:05PM -, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> For Andrew: the code takes the respect
close 226975
thanks
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:42PM -0500, David A. Bandel wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3.2-4
> Severity: normal
>
> Software that depends on versioning information from GCC doesn't work:
Funny, the rest of the world gets it just fine...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ o
> >list a;
> >sort(a.begin(), a.end());
> >
> > This doesn't compile, it looks like valid C++ code.
>
> But it isn't, since a.begin() is not a random access iterator.
And if one compiles with -D_GLIBCPP_CONCEPT_CHECKS an error will be
flagged. (Largely unreadable, as such errors tend to
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:40:55AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 07:12:29AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But it seems to be called with autoconf:
> >
> > $ ./configure >/dev/null
> > configure: error: C++ preprocessor "/lib/cpp" fails sanity check
> > See `c
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:35:48PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
>
>No there is no way to confirm this any more because NBIO does not
>compile any more with the current compiler, can you try it and tell
>how to download NBIO and compile it?
>
> NBIO does compile and is not difficult
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:36:00AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
>
> I would have been (and would still be) happy to do additional research
> if you can let me know what you and/or the GCC developers need from me
> over and above the test case I provided with the original bug report.
Looking ov
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:29:03AM -0400, xiphmont wrote:
> I have more information to offer; it appears to be a version skew
> problem. Updating only gcc-3.3 and not g++-3.3 is what triggered the
> problem (g++ was expecting includes in the old location, gcc had
> removed/moved them). I'd have t
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:29:09PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> > vore:~> dpkg
> > Bus error
>
> Well, if I compile lib/myopt.c and lib/startup.c, without -O2, I get no bus
> error. Maybe this is a gcc issue?
FWIW, the comment here
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11366
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 03:42:30PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > if you don't accept toolchain bugs, stay away from unstable and
> > testing. if you want to help the projects, help with your time and
> > knowledge.
>
> we've had this discussion befo
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:49:12PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> if you go to http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi you'll find a list of
> all the machines available to debian developers. escher.debian.org,
> faure.debian.org, lully.debian.org are all alpha machines so it looks
> like you _do_ have an
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:20:18PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alex Romosan writes:
> >> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > please the bug reporting instructions: "with preprocessed source if
> >> > appropriate".
> >>
> >> we are
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:18:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> AFAIK the distribution of
> license texts is allowed in main, even if the license itself is
> non-free.
This would seem to be only common sense.
If I take it upon myself to educate the world about the evil and stupidity
of the EULA
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:56:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > Turns out that the main page /used/ to be generated by doxygen, but isn't
> > anymore. Heh.
> >
> > Anyhow, I've uploaded a new collection of generated pages. T
Turns out that the main page /used/ to be generated by doxygen, but isn't
anymore. Heh.
Anyhow, I've uploaded a new collection of generated pages. The ftp sites
will have *-20030624.tar.bz2 files now.
I don't know how those collections make their way into the debian source
packages, nor what to
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:06:42AM +0200, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
> Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > int foo(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > return x - y;
> > > }
> >
> > There is no conversion to int. foo* may be sub
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:31:58PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> //string z=2; // OK: does NOT compile
Note that although you write '=' here, you are still constructing a new
string object. There is no basic_string constructor which takes an integer,
so it does not compile.
> x[key] = 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] removed; no bug was added to the gcc database,
since the email was malformed]
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:32:09PM -0400, Matteo Frigo wrote:
> >Description:
>
> It would be nice if this function issued a warning because of the
> implicit conversion ptrdiff_t -> int:
>
> int foo(
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 12:31:41AM +0600, Victor Porton wrote:
>
> Probably you should say:
>
> Returns:
> An iterator pointing to the first element "not less than" val or
> end if no such element.
The version in the development tree already says something similar.
--
If ye love wealth
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:30:30PM +0600, Victor Porton wrote:
> Returns:
> An iterator pointing to the first element "not less than" val.
> ]]
>
> "Returns" clause does not consider the case when there are no elements "not
> less than" val in the iterators range.
Well, if you think about it
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:32:15PM +0600, Victor Porton wrote:
> >
> > It's automatically generated, not a design choice.
>
> Probably Doxygen has an option in the config file to change the title.
No, it doesn't. (Perhaps you should check first.)
Like I said, running the generated page through
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 08:37:13PM +0600, Victor Porton wrote:
> It is unclear from the API docs whether std::lower_bound if there are no
> element element "not less than" val.
That question does not parse. Could you rephrase please?
The "brief" description might be helpful you here here, too.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 08:30:55PM +0600, Victor Porton wrote:
> Package: libstdc++5-3.3-doc
> Version: 1:3.3-3
> Severity: minor
I would change this to wishlist if I knew how to do it properly.
> The HTML title (in browser titlebar) of
> http://localhost/doc/libstdc++5-3.3-doc/libstdc++/html_us
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> > > It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
> > > submitted a bugreport with
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
> submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It would be
> helpful if this two-liner (the Mips, part, never mind the AIX part) could
> be applied
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:26:32PM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> $ cat static_var.cc
>
> class bar {
> public:
> int operator()(int i) { return i; }
> //bar (void) {} // default constructor
> };
>
> const bar b = bar (); // works always...
> const bar b2; // fails if there is no expl
> I'd think there should be a strstream.h, and not strstream, but see what
> PR 7230 says.
How odd. I would have expected strstream.h too.
*shrug* Somebody has to lose, and frankly, when it's a deprecated header
that was never standardized in the first place, I don't much care who it is.
After
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:33:50AM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> S?bastien FRAN?OIS wrote:
>
> >/usr/bin/tbl: /usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_3.3' not found
>
> Can you report what package /usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 belongs to?
Packages? In /usr/local? Yuck...
> Just try re
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:30:08PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 03:31:50PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:36:05PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > > Package: libstdc++5-3.3-dev
> > > Version: 1:3.3-2
> > >
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:36:05PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Package: libstdc++5-3.3-dev
> Version: 1:3.3-2
> Severity: minor
>
> As the subject says, g++-3.3 no longer supports the
> header for backwards compatibility, while g++-3.2 did. At least one
> source package, dx, needs this heade
> The stream::attach entry in porting-howto.html does not mention the
> stdio_filebuf as an alternative.
I'll try to get in touch with the upstream author of porting-howto.xml.
Failing that, if anybody knows how to use "docbook" to edit or generate
or do whatever to porting-howto.xml, a patch to u
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 04:24:37PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> >
> > Debian already hurts the x86 users (IMHO) by giving them a compiler
> > targetted for processor which, I'd bet, is used by less th
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:32:26PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:49:44PM +0100, Sebastian Wilhelmi wrote:
> > >
> > > The file /usr/include/c++/3.2/i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h
> > > has code, which does not work on i386. It needs i486 or a
This old bug was closed with a note pointing to
/usr/doc/libstdc++3-doc/libstdc++/html_user/
which doesn't actually contain the man pages. Rather, those are HTML pages,
generated from the same source.
Anyhow.
I've just uploaded (to gcc.gnu.org) a new tarball of man pages for the
library.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:28:44AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> As noted in the corresponding man page, the 'sprintf' and 'vsprintf'
> functions are
> insecure, and should not be used. I suggest that gcc print a warning when
> compiling
> code in which they are used, as it already does with
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:47:59PM +0100, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:39:55 -0800 Randolph Chung wrote:
> > > For a standard conforming compiler, g++-3.2 must be configured with
> > > --enable-__cxa_atexit (the function __cxa_atexit is in libc6).
> >
> > are you actua
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:37:14AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> libstdc++3 - The GNU stdc++ library version 3
> libstdc++3-dbg - The GNU stdc++ library version 3 (debugging files)
> libstdc++3-dev - The GNU stdc++ library version 3 (development files)
> libstdc++3-doc - The GNU stdc++ library v
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:30:52AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 05:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > How to avoid this?
>
> Not sure. The libc6-pic package doesn't suffer from this warning. The
> major difference I see quickly is some "libc_pic.map" file which lists
> sy
mated crap".
Annoyingly, there's no easy documented way to add oneself to the list of
recipients of an existing BTS number, and there's no way to remove oneself
from getting junk from the BTS itself.
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:07:36PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
>
>
After setting LD_LIBRARY_PATHY to /usr/lib/debug, and firing up the
debugger, I can see that the correct libstdc++.so is being found (i.e.,
the one with the debugging symbols). And stepping into those functions
works, in that it knows the file/line location.
However, the debugger can't print any
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 05:46:28PM +, Loic Jaquemet wrote:
> I search a bit in the gcc CVS, and found that gcc's CVS was patched
> around May 2002
> (
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/c-common.h?rev=1.137&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
> ) to support(parse at least) this opti
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 03:42:06PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
>
> > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> But using GraphViz, even in this way, is not consistent with FSF
> >> policies--so it would be rather easy to force you to change
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 01:20:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> -rw-r--r--1 willywilly 1884666 Nov 14 09:26
> >> gcc-3.2_3.2.1ds5-0pre6.diff.gz
> >
> > the big diff is the pregenerated libstdc++ documentation.
I thought the library
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:10:09PM -0800, Ranjan Parthasarathy wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am using a woody system and using the 2.95.4 version of the GNU compiler.
> The standard c++ library (2.10)
> seems to miss out on some essential headers that are required as per
> standard c++ compliance and this is
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:27:16AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 04:06:27PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > >Description:
> > running htdig on the installed set of html docs shows some
> > broken/non-existing links:
>
> The files lwg-active.html and lwg-defect
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:12:48PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:36:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Grovelling around on the GCC website it appears that the issue is that
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:36:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> Grovelling around on the GCC website it appears that the issue is that
> libstdc++ needs _GNU_SOURCE although I can't quite be sure about that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#3_5
--
I would therefore li
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:07:36PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:17:45PM +0200, Tobias Hunger wrote:
> > This
> > is very annoying as you need to fill in all the gory details if you want
> > to have a string of something else (like string to hold a
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:17:45PM +0200, Tobias Hunger wrote:
> bits/char_traits.h Defines the char_traits template without providing a
> default implementation, only specialisations for char and wchar_t.
This is by design.
> This
> is very annoying as you need to fill in all the gory details if
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:45:49PM -0700, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> stlport (which is a
> replacement/extension of libstdc++)
Other way around, actually, and even that's not entirely accurate.
> detects the path during configuration,
> but then stores it somewhere in its own headers.
How odd.
Ph
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 12:31:01PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>Sorry. I posted it because there appears to be a lag
> between when the tarballs are posted and the announcement
> of their availablity. The gcc 3.1.1 announcement still hasn't
> been made...perhaps to allow the mirrors to populate.
> I think GCC maintainers are aware of GCC releases.
> No need to file a bug every time a new GCC is being released.
> It is harassing.
I agree. Also, the new release scripts take some time to run and verify
that the tarballs are correct. Until the announcement goes out on the
gcc-announce list
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:04:48AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.1
> Version: 1:3.1.1-0pre3
> Severity: normal
Could you try this with one of the 3.2 compilers, maybe the gcc-snapshot
package? I know that there were some weird bugs with line numbers in error
messages up until a m
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 10:44:16PM -, Marc Singer wrote:
> Package: g++-3.1
> Version: 1:3.1.1-0pre2
> Severity: normal
>
>
> This code compiled in gcc-3.0 and fails in gcc-3.1 claiming that class
> rope is not to be found in std.
Yep. Extensions not actually in the standard ISO namespace
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 04:37:11PM +0200, Christof Petig wrote:
> Christof Petig wrote:
> > The following code does not compile with g++-3.0 and g++-3.1, but it
> > does with g++-2.95.4. What is wrong (std:: is not missing!)?
>
> Oh, std:: was missing - in a way ...
>
> std::find only looks in n
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:15:35PM +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> While trying to debug a program, I encountered some weird paths that
> prevented me from taking advance of the debug-lib:
>
> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libstdc++_debug/libstdc++3.so.3 gdb ./test
> ...
> (gdb) step
> 178 in
> /home/
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:01:04PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> after some discussion with Florian Weimer I came
> to the conclusion, that my complaint may not make
> sense. Does it?
The library is definitely /not/ "version 4". The 4 represents an ABI
change; the project's name is still libstdc++
> > i am concerned that between gcc versions, there are often changes in the
> > C++ (and maybe others) ABI, and moving all of our packages to the new
> > version is likely going to be a painful process. If the g++-3.2 ABI is
> > already frozen (?)
The C++ ABI is done, but there were minor bugs i
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:09:22AM +0200, Martin Rasp wrote:
> Hi.
>
> When compiling QT3 & KDE3 under Debian Woody with gcc-3.0 and g++-3.0 KDE3
> crashes during startup. When compiling with gcc-2.95 and g++-2.95 it's
> working fine.
>
> Is it because the linked debian libraries are compilied
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:29:50AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I vaguely remember of some effort to make libstdc++ libraries
> compatible between Linux distributions. However the only message I can
> find is
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-02/msg00080.html
>
> Please
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 02:53:37PM +1100, mffm Matt Flax wrote:
>
> I would like to compile my own libstdc++ V3.0 for my debian release.
> Can you please tell me what ./configure options were specified ?
> Or where to look to find them ?
[gcc|g++] -v
Configure options for the compiler are passed
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:04:55AM +1100, mffm Matt Flax wrote:
>
> Compilation is fine. When I try to execute, I get the following
> problem :
> relocation error:
> undefined symbol: __dso_handle
You need either a much older binutils, or a newer one. For GCC 3.x I
recommend the latter.
Phil
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:28:42AM -0500, Eric T. Korb wrote:
> I'm also getting a Seg Fault executing the following code snippet using
> gcc3.0. Are there any known problems with ostringstream in 3.0? Thanks
> in advance,
>
> - Eric
>
> #include
>
> int main ()
> {
> std::basic_ostri
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 12:29:06AM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > It's unfortunate, that 2.95.x development got stuck somewhere.
There's a limited amount of manpower. If you want to contribute to the 2.95
branch, feel free. The release manager is
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:07:22PM -0700, David Mandala wrote:
> When attempting to build php 4.1.1 on my netwinder I get the following
> error messages, which seem to be a gcc error, not sure where to go from
> here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
Usually this URL will be printed by the compi
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 01:33:42AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> It is odd that gcc supports this on some platforms and not on others. On
> i386, it appears to merely add -lpthread to the command line. It doesn't
> even produce a warning.
This has been a thorn in our (our == gcc maintainers) si
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:51:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > The library 3.0.95 snapshot is the 3.1 sources as of a few weeks ago,
> > with the exception-handling bits tweaked to work with GCC 3.0.
>
> assume we want to get 3.0.95 into the Deb
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> >
> > On top of all the other reasons already mentioned, the memory expansion
> > code for basic_string<> in 3.0 wasn't as good as it could be (and it
> > wasn't
On top of all the other reasons already mentioned, the memory expansion
code for basic_string<> in 3.0 wasn't as good as it could be (and it
wasn't strictly conforming in some cases). These problems have already
been fixed for 3.1; there are some spiffy benchmarks in the libstdc++
mailing list ar
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:15:56PM +1100, Dancer Vesperman wrote:
>
> I've got what looks like it might be a bug in ostream/streambuf/endl
> interaction, rendered down to a fairly straightforward form. If it _is_
> a bug, it's obviously an upstream bug. I'm unable to figure out just who
> and how
Something that just came up last week: it might be nice to have a toolchain
targeting the win32 platform. The few times I've needed to build a .exe
from a linux box were memorable experiences due to the hoop-jumping required.
(I suspect it's much easier now.)
Users wondering "how well would suc
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:47:50AM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > possibly include a glibc header, otherwise certain C++ programs will
> > simply fail out of the box.
>
> I don't believe that this is true.
[...]
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2000-12/msg00215.html
Well, there's my ex
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 01:38:06AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Martin v. Loewis writes:
> > > > I can't see a reason for libstdc++ requiring _GNU_SOURCE except for the
> > > > desire to re-export symbols in std::, for which I would propose a
> > > > different strategy.
> > >
> > > It would help
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:20:38AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 23:34:20 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/programming$ g++ -V 3.0.2 hello.cpp
>
> Do "g++-3.0 hello.cpp" instead.
Also, if you're using the "new-style" headers, you need to call
std::
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:08:25PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > It would be nice to have more cross-compilers available,
> > so that it can become possible cross-compile programs for other
> > platforms. Cross-compilers should at least be available for all
> > platforms that are supported b
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:40:48PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> file:///usr/share/doc/g++-3.0/libstdc++/html/documentation.html
> includes a reference to
> file:///usr/share/doc/g++-3.0/libstdc++/html/17_intro/headER_POLICY
> The capitalization appears that way on the page too. It doesn't work,
>
Please stop cc'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED], by the way. That only works for
appending to an existing PR, and there is no PR to append to. So their
GNATS database pukes.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:18:45PM -0600, James E Jurach Jr. wrote:
> > Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral m
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:45:40PM -0600, James E Jurach Jr. wrote:
> I understood from nm(1) output that, at least in the past, g++ did not
> create a symbol for these int's, but rather performed some kind of inline
> optimization.
Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral members,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:06:31PM -0600, James Jurach wrote:
> When class members declared as static const int appear in conditional
> expressions, they are not properly optimized out. The compiler treats them
> as undefined variables, rather than integer literals.
That's because they /are/ unde
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 12:20:20AM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > Nor do I believe that the HOWTO suggests that stdio is bad.
>
> Well, it says "Ditch C". It says so only to get my attention, but I
> still read it as "if you want to performance, do not use stdio"
I think the text makes it c
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 11:20:17PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > Well, the problem isn't so much with glibc anymore, since 3.0 doesn't use
> > bits and pieces of glibc for I/O like we did in 2.x. (Not even on Linux.)
>
> That exactly is the problem. If stdio and iostreams were still
> integr
> > So, is the final behaviour (aka: non-buffered output) the standard
> > behaviour? My guess is not ... if so, is there a way to fix it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/27_io/howto.html#8
> There is certainly a way to fix it. The problem is that every solution
> that has been consi
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
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
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:03:37PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 04:12:06AM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > I also believe that the comment in this header claiming that it is
> > internal is incorrect; the headers without .h are never internal, but
> &g
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 04:12:06AM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > > It does compile cleanly when replacing with or with
> > > .
> >
> > It may be that that is the proper way to do it; I'm not familiar enough with
> > STL to know. Perhaps someone on debian-gcc can comment on this?
>
> Includ
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:24:16PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Not exactly. Here is what I'm talking about:
[...]
> int f(int x)
> {
>int f;
>f = 2;
>for (int i=1; i<=4; i++) {
> f = f + i * x;
>}
> }
[...]
> It
> might be valid in C++ specification (is it?), but the c
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 08:44:48AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > The 'gcc' package is hardcoded to gcc-2.95 right now. You can have all
> > three packages installed, and the symlink doesn't change:
Just to clarify: I wasn't complaini
> All the -3.0 packages don't depend, recommend or even suggest the
> packages making it possible (especially on hppa where -3.0 is
> the default compiler) to install just gcc-3.0 and not have a gcc
> symlink which is probably not a good thing?
The 'gcc' package is hardcoded to gcc-2.95 right no
95 matches
Mail list logo
