Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-05-01 Thread Keith Walker
John Polstra wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > > > Since the Linux config files specify DEFALUT_VTABLE_THUNKS=1, no one > > has posted a bug report related to them, there is an option to turn > > them off, and this *is* -CURRENT. I may just leave them turned on by > > default. > > > > Opinions? > >

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-30 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote: > > These are good questions, and I don't know enough yet about the issues > > surrounding vtable thunks to answer them. > > I haven't had time to really dig into this yet. Hopefully Saturday. I'm > about to revert the change until I can see what the

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-30 Thread Doug Rabson
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote: > > These are good questions, and I don't know enough yet about the issues > > surrounding vtable thunks to answer them. > > I haven't had time to really dig into this yet. Hopefully Saturday. I'm > about to revert the change until I can see what the

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-30 Thread Steve Price
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote: # > These are good questions, and I don't know enough yet about the issues # > surrounding vtable thunks to answer them. # # I haven't had time to really dig into this yet. Hopefully Saturday. I'm # about to revert the change until I can see what the

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-30 Thread John Polstra
David O'Brien wrote: > I haven't had time to really dig into this yet. Hopefully Saturday. > I'm about to revert the change until I can see what the problem > is and what the upgrade issues will be. EGCS 1.2 *should* be out > in the July/Aug time frame. Of course I will try to upgrade us > to i

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-30 Thread David O'Brien
> These are good questions, and I don't know enough yet about the issues > surrounding vtable thunks to answer them. I haven't had time to really dig into this yet. Hopefully Saturday. I'm about to revert the change until I can see what the problem is and what the upgrade issues will be. EGCS

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-29 Thread John Polstra
In article , Steve Price wrote: > Fair enough, but the problem that really concerns me is that > all the C++ libraries (and the programs that use them) will have > to be recompiled when we make the switch. Is there a programatic > way to tell which vtable implementation a library was compiled >

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-29 Thread Steve Price
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, John Polstra wrote: #> - Forwarded message from Steve Price - #> #> Since the vtable thunks are more efficient and will eventually #> be the default, we might ought to stick with them. David mentioned #> that there might be problems with them, but with enough develo

Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-29 Thread John Polstra
> - Forwarded message from Steve Price - > > Since the vtable thunks are more efficient and will eventually > be the default, we might ought to stick with them. David mentioned > that there might be problems with them, but with enough developers > using -current to beat out the kinks we

(FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead...

1999-04-29 Thread David O'Brien
- Forwarded message from Steve Price - #> Remember you asked. :-) #> #> [ patch elided ... ] # # Thank you sir! I recompiled cc and friends, then the libstdc++, and # Shazam! everything works again. Haven't done an extensive test, but KDE # works and my X10 daemon :-) # # Thank you, than