http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-08 10:06:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I think Jack is confused regarding --enable-libstdcxx-timer. From emailing > me, > he seems to be under the impression that '--enable-libstdcxx-timer' is > equivalent to '--enable-libstdcxx-timer=no' ... if that is the case, then > something is certainly wrong since --enable-libstdcxx-timer should be > equivalent to '--enable-libstdcxx-timer=yes' ... It is equivalent. (N.B. "time" not "timer") > As for darwin ... we have sched_yield and nanosleep. We don't have > clock_gettime. > > Why are you testing for posix timer support in your checks for sched_yield and > nanosleep? See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-05/msg00085.html for previous suggestions for having more fine-grained checks than the current one for --enable-libstdcxx-time (In reply to comment #13) > Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00696.html. Jack, I've asked you before, please send libstdc++ patches to the libstdc++ list. This patch is not acceptable, it doesn't "fix" anything, so consider it rejected. (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Note that the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler, thus there is no > > real > > difference between timespec and struct timespec. > > Except that one is POSIX and one is not. Additionally, you shouldn't assume > that g++ is being used. Hopefully, libstdc++ would be portable enough that > one > wouldn't need to bootstrap g++ to build it. But you do need a C++ compiler. All patches to that code are rejected unless they get sent to the right list, I'm not even going to review them otherwise, I'll just reject them. Testing changes to those configure checks on a single platform proves nothing about whether the change is correct.
