[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-15 17:04 --- I'm closing this as fixed for 4.5.0. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #17 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 17:48 --- unassigning; fixed for 4.5 by Jakub. -- rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #16 from law at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 16:38 --- Subject: Bug 38923 Author: law Date: Thu Oct 29 16:37:47 2009 New Revision: 153711 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153711 Log: Recorded merge of revisions 153568-153570 via svnmerge from svn+ssh

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-26 20:28 --- Subject: Bug 38923 Author: jakub Date: Mon Oct 26 20:28:24 2009 New Revision: 153570 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153570 Log: PR libstdc++/38923 * acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_CHECK

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #14 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-05 11:30 --- *** Bug 41333 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #13 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 00:44 --- Fixed on trunk. -- rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #12 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 00:43 --- Subject: Bug 38923 Author: rwild Date: Wed Sep 30 00:43:28 2009 New Revision: 152315 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152315 Log: sed and head portability fixes in ld version check. libstdc++-v

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #11 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-23 04:22 --- patch at . -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38923

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

-- rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #10 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-19 15:31 --- I've just noticed this bit of install.texi: The build process works more smoothly with the legacy Sun tools so, if you have @file{/usr/xpg4/bin} in your @env{PATH}, we recommend that you place @file{/usr/bin} be

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #9 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2009-03-07 20:25 --- I usually set the environment variable POSIXLY_CORRECT when I want to catch portability issues. The GNU versions of the utils are usually good about disabling extensions and griping about violations. -- fang

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-01-21 12:21 --- Not sure what happened yesterday, but I get the same result for both libgomp and libstdc++ today: both interpret the GNU ld version as 1800 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38923

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-01-20 19:07 --- I've just noticed that the libgomp configure says: configure: versioning on shared library symbols is gnu even though it seems to have the same sed script as libstdc++, which says: configure: WARNING: === Lin

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 18:50 --- This code block appears to be capable of generating no end of issues, sadly. For the record, POSIX head docs say -n is a requirement for conformance, at least p.2791 of EEE Std 1003.1-2008. Of course, who knows if all

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-20 17:29 --- Yes, I only meant the "head -1" vs "head -n 1" part. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38923

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #4 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-01-20 17:18 --- oh sorry, Paolo, did you only mean the "head" part? I'm not too concerned about that bit, it works everywhere I care about, even if POSIX says otherwise -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38923

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #3 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-01-20 17:17 --- then http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/bk01pt01ch02.html#manual.intro.setup.prereq should be updated to say a POSIX sed is required. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38923

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-20 17:02 --- (In reply to comment #1) > should "head -1" also be replaced by "head -n 1" or is that less portable? Isn't this a very old issue? I think you will find a straightforward answer / rationale in the archive, or,

[Bug libstdc++/38923] symbol versioning disabled due to non-portable sed script

--- Comment #1 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-01-20 15:58 --- should "head -1" also be replaced by "head -n 1" or is that less portable? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38923