> It is my strong preference to not do macro defines in c++config.h as
> per your last patch.
Strike this, it's incorrect. Sorry Jakub.
If doing this gets around the bad link behavior, at this point, I'm
for it. I suggest you put in a link to 22109 to your patch. Then, the
patches for 22109 and
> PR 22111 is about libstdc++-v3 being built with binutils 2.15, while
> 2.15.90 or later are required by the patch.
I say we solve this instead by enabling the abi checking rule only for
those platforms that are using symbol versioning. In addition, we try
to come up with an autoconf macro that
Geoff Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 19/06/2005, at 3:45 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/cmath/
| > c99_classification_macros_c.cc
| > |
| > | appears to fail, with lots of complaints like
| > |
On 19/06/2005, at 3:45 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/cmath/
c99_classification_macros_c.cc
|
| appears to fail, with lots of complaints like
|
| c99_classification_macros_c.cc:49:21: error: macro
"isgreaterequa
Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/cmath/c99_classification_macros_c.cc
|
| appears to fail, with lots of complaints like
|
| c99_classification_macros_c.cc:49:21: error: macro "isgreaterequal" requires
2 arguments, but only 1 given
|
| but the ac
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GCC 4.0.1 RC2 is now available here:
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050616
>
> This version has the libstdc++ versioning changes, and most of the PO
> file updates. The PO file that Joseph checked in today is not
> included, but w
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:46:42AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> >>Please test this version and report problems in Bugzilla, with a Cc:
> >>to me. I'd also appreciate explicit confirmation from a representative
> >>of the libstdc++ team that this version as packaged still h
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>1 new failure for libstdc++-v3 in 64-bit mode:
>
>FAIL: ext/array_allocator/2.cc execution test
>
>but *not* a regression.
>
>
Indeed, I can confirm that: it's a very long standing issue ultimately
due to basic_string not rebinding the allocator template argument to one
suf
> GCC 4.0.1 RC2 is now available here:
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050616
OK on SPARC/Solaris:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01107.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01110.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01108.html
Good to go on AIX 5.2:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01101.html
David
Mark Michell wrote:
> GCC 4.0.1 RC2 is now available here:
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050616
Still fine on s390(x):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01103.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01104.html
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weiga
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Please test this version and report problems in Bugzilla, with a Cc:
to me. I'd also appreciate explicit confirmation from a representative
of the libstdc++ team that this version as packaged still has the
desired behavior, just to catch any packaging snafus.
This versio
> Please test this version and report problems in Bugzilla, with a Cc:
> to me. I'd also appreciate explicit confirmation from a representative
> of the libstdc++ team that this version as packaged still has the
> desired behavior, just to catch any packaging snafus.
This version looks correct to
13 matches
Mail list logo
