On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Tamas TEVESZ wrote:
hi,
> i have a hunch that i am verifying now (only 3.3 g++ is done so far,
> this is a slow machine, but so far the only result i have is
> promising): change the order of initializers.
fyi that fixed g++ 2.95 as well as 3.3.6, without any noticeable
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
hi,
> The problem is trivial. GCC-2.96 when C++ mode is used ignores
> __attribute__ ((constructor)) and does not add functions with
> above attribute to .ctors segment. Looks like it was fixed in
> one of GCC-3.3x releases but I do not know the
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
Hi,
> Yes, it's and it was exploited in last year. I was cleaning the code
> adding support for g++ about five years ago using xHarbour repository
> and above RH7.3 with gcc-2.96 and for sure it was working correctly.
Update. I've just checked that
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Tamas TEVESZ wrote:
Hi,
> it seems that something is wrong with g++2.95 builds afterall.
> i took a fresh checkout of 13263, and tried building it on an older
> linux/i386 box that has gcc 2.95.
> (i changed HB_CMP to gcc-2.05 and g++-2.95 in config/linux/gcc.mk
> because t
hi,
it seems that something is wrong with g++2.95 builds afterall.
i took a fresh checkout of 13263, and tried building it on an older
linux/i386 box that has gcc 2.95.
(i changed HB_CMP to gcc-2.05 and g++-2.95 in config/linux/gcc.mk
because this has no gcc and g++ links, but that's all that
