--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-01-18 09:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #29 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 08:35 ---
>
> I asked f
--- Comment #29 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 08:35 ---
I asked for two votes:
1) keep removal of pre-iso includes, (ie current sources). Majority approves.
2) reinstate just iostream.h and fstream.h. Majority declines.
Therefore, I am closing this as WONTFIX as per Ric
--- Comment #28 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2008-01-17 06:26 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Please give specifics, including what bug reports and what headers. Your
> experience is much different from my datapoint, which is Jakub building fedora
> with gcc-43. I see 8 fails 5118 packages
--- Comment #27 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 23:41 ---
> My -- possibly incorrect -- understanding is that in this case the
> problem with the old headers is not that it prevents implementation of
> an ISO-conformant C++ library, but just that they're a pain to keep
> a
--- Comment #26 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 22:34
---
I should make a mention, that I added for the GCC 4.1.1 based PS3 toolchain an
option to give source compatibility for GCC 4.0.2, if anyone wants the patch, I
can provide it. It was mostly C++ front-end changes to
--- Comment #25 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-16 22:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I believe there is a bit of a bias here, in that it's OK to make FE changes,
> but even well-documented and wa
--- Comment #24 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2008-01-16 22:21
---
A compromise might be to provide the headers only if specifically requested,
say, by -fbackward-headers (something more specific than -fpermissive). So by
default, the compiler/preprocessor will now error out, bu
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-01-16 19:40 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #21 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 19:22 ---
>
> > old dep
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 19:27
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34778 is one example, this example
just came into today. There are many more. A lot of the windows/xbox360 based
games use the deprecated headers also.
--
http://g
--- Comment #21 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 19:22 ---
> old deprecated headers all over the place
Please give specifics, including what bug reports and what headers. Your
experience is much different from my datapoint, which is Jakub building fedora
with gcc-43. I see 8
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 19:06
---
I still see people use the old deprecated headers all over the place, even in
newer bug reports. So it is hard to think they will be removed any time soon.
I am sorry but from a QA point of view, they should be a
--- Comment #19 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 18:58 ---
I'm asking for a libstdc++ maintainer vote on this issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--- Comment #18 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 18:46 ---
The ammount of breakage for this change is IMHO tolerable and will within the
tolerances of other breakages that nobody is talking about reverting, and
furthermore solutions for the API change are well documented. Cer
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 10:47
---
So, this is still a P1 regression for 4.3. Ping!
(I expect Linux distributors will "deal" with this problem, but I also expect
our customers to scream bloody murder at us for this change)
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #16 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-12-17 07:01 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
>
>
> Now that we have ext/hash_map and ext/hash_set back (yes, SPEC2000
> eon still is broken, as it uses the removed iostream.h and other *.h
FWIW, I have 252.eon.gcc43.src.alt.tar.bz2, which wor
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-12-17 04:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> Now that we have ext/hash_map and ext/hash_set back (yes, SPEC2000
> eon still is broken, as it uses the removed
--- Comment #14 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-12-14 14:15 ---
Well, Mark asked for a good reason for removing the headers, and none was
given,
which would imply the next step would have been to revert their removal.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-12-14 10:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 129442 breaks
libstc++ API
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
> I found it:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00389.html
I don't remember an explicit request
--- Comment #12 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-12-14 05:32 ---
I found it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00389.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--- Comment #11 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-12-14 02:12 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I am unaware of a reversion request.
I cannot find the mail right now via the web interface and I'm travelling and
my gcc mbox files are on a different machine. Maybe I'm mixing things up then.
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-13 17:13 ---
I am unaware of a reversion request.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--- Comment #9 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-12-13 03:03 ---
I thought Mark told you two months ago to revert this patch and you didn't
object. Has anything changed since then? At this point, I no longer care
whether these headers are removed or not but I'd like to know for sure
so I
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 23:20 ---
Re: #7.
Sorry about the timing. I agree it is unfortunate.
I do believe that the correct timing on this is to do both new C++0x interfaces
and the revised backwards includes at the same time. (Certainly, this fits i
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 22:57 ---
Really the change happened too late in the release cycle which is why people
are complaining about this change and it is not that advertised that it would
break many people's code. In my mind, we should wait for 4.4
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 22:56 ---
The gcc-4.3 release intentionally changes the libstdc++ API. It is intended
with this release that either:
C++98
or
C++0x
will be used, and that either dialect will work with both TR1 and the various
extensions lis
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-12-08 03:10 ---
What's the status of this, Ben?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-28 00:53 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-21 21:41 ---
I believe all those header files should be restored unless we have a very
good reason to break libstdc++ API.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33831
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-20 19:31 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Actually there are 15 packages that fail out of 2500 because of this, another
> 6 from the ext/hash_fun.h move. I can't tell if in the other 400 packages
> that
> fail with 4.3 for various reasons
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 18:48 ---
Actually there are 15 packages that fail out of 2500 because of this, another
6 from the ext/hash_fun.h move. I can't tell if in the other 400 packages that
fail with 4.3 for various reasons there are more cases of
33 matches
Mail list logo
