> And that one should be fixed by the patch I posted, so Solaris
> should be hopefully fine.
Yup, OK everywhere.
--
Eric Botcazou
Volker Reichelt wrote:
Hi Mark,
you wrote
Those who have been watching carefully will note that there is no sign of an
actual
4.0.1 release.
since the branch has been frozen for quite sime time now, a lot of patches
for the 4.0 branch have piled up.
Given the facts that
a) we'll have ano
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The diff is attached.
Except that
-_ZNSt13basic_istreamIwSt11char_traitsIwEE6ignoreEil@@GLIBCXX_3.4 FUNC GLOBAL
DEFAULT
the diff just shows the expected 24 changes of @@GLIBCXX_3.4 symbols
to @GLIBCXX_3.4 + @@GLIBCXX_3.4.5 and 2 add
> Can you please post output from
> readelf -Ws libstdc++.so.6 \
>
> | sed -n '/\.symtab/,$d;/ UND /d;/\(GLOBAL\|WEAK\)/p' \
> | awk '{ if ($4 == "OBJECT") { printf "%s %s %s %s %s\n", $8, $4, $5, $6,
> | $3 } else { printf "%s %s %s %s\n", $8, $4, $5, $6 }}' \ LC_ALL=C sort
> | -u
>
> befo
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:56:52AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I would be especially grateful for people testing this on primary hosts
> > that are not linux. In particular, AIX and Solaris.
>
> OK on Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6, but not OK on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10:
Can you please post output from
> I would be especially grateful for people testing this on primary hosts
> that are not linux. In particular, AIX and Solaris.
OK on Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6, but not OK on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10:
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/ignore/wchar_t/1.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING: 27_io/basic_istream/ig
> 1. Benjamin Kosnik reports that there are ABI and/or version-symbol
> problems between 3.4.x and 4.0.x version of libstdc++, and is trying to
> sort out a solution.
I think I have found an acceptable solution for this issue.
Here is more info:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg013
R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
(Interestingly, the fixes in glibc-cvs
seem to have been made in such a way that
the new glibc won't be compilable by older
versions of gcc, like gcc-3.4.4.
I guess the thinking is that everyone should be using the latest gcc?)
Hmm, do you
Daniel Kegel wrote:
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Agreed. I've had mixed reports from folks over in the Gentoo universe
about glibc; perhaps this page might be of interest:
http://process-of-elimination.net/?q=gentoo_and_gcc_4_0_0_tips_and_tricks
Hey Scott.
That page is pretty outdated. AFAIK we
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
2. Jakub Jelinek reports that we're miscompiling GLIBC.
[I think this is http://gcc.gnu.org/PR22043 ]
The latter problem seems to me to be as severe as the KDE bug that was
the impetus for this release. ...
Agreed. I've had mixed reports from
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 2. Jakub Jelinek reports that we're miscompiling GLIBC.
>
> The latter problem seems to me to be as severe as the KDE bug that was
> the impetus for this release. The libstdc++ problem also seems serious.
Agreed. I've had mixed reports from folks over in the Gentoo univers
11 matches
Mail list logo
