Hi Jim,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> Well, care to send in some diffs (or at least pointers to what needs to
> be fixed)? The Party Line (as I understand it) is that Pro64 is written
> in standard C++ but if the reality doesn't live up to it, well,
> maybe we can fix that.
Sorry, no diffs, but I can point out a couple of things (admittedly not
all language problems). I'm using
gcc version 2.97 20010212 (experimental)
obtained from the gcc-3_0-branch of the CVS repository, on Red Hat 6.2.
1. be/opt/opt_cfg_trans.h line 652
The specialisation of struct less<> needs to be done in the std namespace.
2. common/com/ia64/targ_sim_body.h line 142
The declaration
static SIM sim_info[];
is rejected (a defining declaration needs a complete type). This also
clashes with
static SIM sim_info[] = { /* big initialiser */ };
in common/com/ia64/targ_sim.cxx
3. be/com/emulate.cxx line 69
trunc() is already provided by the libm that comes with glibc2.1 (at least
on RH6.2).
> > I'd prefer to avoid the forked version of gcc 2.96 that comes with Red Hat
> > 7.0;
> I don't think we've been using it for Pro64, so I'm not sure there is
> any particular reason to go with that version.
Great, I was half expecting to hear that everybody is using that one :)
Question: after tinkering with these files, I wanted to start the build
again from scratch; running 'make clean' didn't seem to have that
effect, so I tried 'make clobber' and now the build process seems badly
broken. Does the clobber target remove something that make can't rebuild?
If I can get going again I will probably find more that needs fixing.
Cheers,
Tony
--
Antony Bowers, STMicroelectronics, Bristol, UK
|