https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to andyg1001 from comment #28)
> Erm, am I the first to notice that this "solution" is broken?
No, see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-09/msg00228.html
> The os_defines.h include that und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
andyg1001 at hotmail dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andyg1001 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #27 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-09
23:48:17 UTC ---
Thanks a lot Joseph, a very good solution.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #26 from Joseph S. Myers 2012-03-09
22:13:49 UTC ---
The __USE_GNU conditional has now been removed from glibc after further
discussion on libc-alpha, so the libstdc++ changes can be reverted (probably
after 4.7.0).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
07:29:29 UTC ---
extern "C" extern
(twice) - too many externs?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #24 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-03-02
07:14:02 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Fri Mar 2 07:13:55 2012
New Revision: 184774
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184774
Log:
2012-03-01 Benjamin Kosnik
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26794|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-01
13:50:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Wouldn't an unconditional
>
> #if _GNU_SOURCE
> extern char *gets (char *__s);
> using ::gets;
> #endif
>
> work as well?
extern "C" or extern "C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-01
13:30:26 UTC ---
f17 doesn't include glibc 2.16, just patched glibc 2.15, which doesn't have
these header changes yet.
The thing I don't like on the last patch is that it hardcodes configure time
test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #19 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-03-01
00:21:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 26794
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26794
gets conditionally declared/used
Here's a way to deal with gets that is pretty simple. If it's a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-28
18:25:54 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Joseph. Thus, to repeat, anything we do in terms of macros has to be
for *2.16* and later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-28 17:05:50 UTC ---
2.15 has the gets prototype. It's 2.16 where it has been removed (but the
version in the headers only changes from 2.15 to 2.16 when the final 2.16
release is made
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-28
16:42:55 UTC ---
I suppose that post 4.7.0 we have to revisit this issue anyway, because C++11
definitely wants to declare std::gets, irrespective of C11. I'm wondering if it
would be possible to just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
16:18:30 UTC ---
Ideally, when using
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
in a C++ program ::gets wouldn't be available (the _GNU_SOURCE requests GNU
namespace rather than standard C++ one), but when using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-02-28 16:09:52 UTC ---
I can confirm that a build for arm-linux-gnueabi completes and do some
cross-testing on qemu if that's deemed to be enough.
Any other ideas for testing.
Ramana
Here's a sug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-28
15:49:26 UTC ---
I'm ok with #c3 patch + comment if it works, using special configure macro
instead of __GLIBC_PREREQ is IMHO undesirable, because then if you build gcc
against glibc 2.14 and afterwar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse 2012-02-28
15:47:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> If the libstdc++ people are going to do something for 4.7, it really needs
> to be done very soon.
The question is: what do the glibc people want? By remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-28
15:35:59 UTC ---
If the release managers agree, I would be in favor of a quick fix per Comment
3, with a huge comment in the code explaining the issue. But I can't test it
right now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-28 15:23:38 UTC ---
If the libstdc++ people are going to do something for 4.7, it really needs
to be done very soon.
Let's assume glibc should at least get a further change for the sake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-05
21:26:26 UTC ---
Though personally I'm not concerned if libstdc++ doesn't define gets(), noone
should be using it, I am concerned that libstdc++ fails to build because of the
using decl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-05
21:00:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yeah, IMHO the removal of gets (== ::gets) for _GNU_SOURCE is very much
> intentional. C++ probably only talks about std::gets, doesn't it?
No, std::gets
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-11
13:49:54 UTC ---
If we are just going to declare gets when glibc doesn't, the easiest solution
is a fixinclude that reverts Ulrich's latest glibc commit. Somehow that doesn't
feel right...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
28 matches
Mail list logo
