On 30 October 2012 00:30, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> It compiles fine with gcc if you put it in a file that ends in .cc or
>> .C or .cpp or any of the other extensions that tell gcc to run the
>> cc1plus compiler. Please read
>> http://gcc.gnu.o
On 29 October 2012 23:44, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Compiling with gcc does not imply you're not compiling C++.
>
> So, in my sample code, how do you compile it with gcc?
>
Put it in a file that ends with .cc or .cpp or .C or .cxx or any of
the
On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It compiles fine with gcc if you put it in a file that ends in .cc or
> .C or .cpp or any of the other extensions that tell gcc to run the
> cc1plus compiler. Please read
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Invoking-G_002b_002b.html
I didn't
On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Compiling with gcc does not imply you're not compiling C++.
So, in my sample code, how do you compile it with gcc?
On 29 October 2012 16:08, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>>>
>>> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used
>>> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc.
>>
>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> I'm sure they could be rewritten in C. GNUs libc choose to do them in C++
> probably because C++ just gives a nicer way to do things.
In the GNU libc __cxa_atexit and __cxa_finalize are written in C, not C++.
We should not add C++ code to
On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:08 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> Some of the support you are adding is equivalent to code in
> libgcc/crtstuff.c. My question was if it is possible to re-use some
> of that code for the new AIX support.
>
> Is the code really C++? Both cxa_atexit.cc and cxa_finalize.cc ar
On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>>
>> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used
>> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc.
>
> That doesn't make sense. Both gcc and g++ are just
On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>
> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used
> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc.
That doesn't make sense. Both gcc and g++ are just driver programs
that invoke the appropriate compiler program, wh
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
> This is on my quest to add __cxa_atexit to AIX's GCC. I'm trying to port my
> patches to trunk.
>
> David said I should move my two files to libgcc.a instead of libstdc++.a
> which is where I put them before.
>
> These files define __cxa_fin
This is on my quest to add __cxa_atexit to AIX's GCC. I'm trying to port my
patches to trunk.
David said I should move my two files to libgcc.a instead of libstdc++.a which
is where I put them before.
These files define __cxa_finalize and __cxa_atexit. These files are mostly
from GNU's libc.
11 matches
Mail list logo