Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Peter Kadau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi ! http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning%20Options Hmm, that's exactly as in the info page. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/C---Dialect-Options.html#C++%20Dialect%20Options and search for permissive, to see the condition Alexander speaks of. Well, here it is: -fpermissive Downgrade messages about nonconformant code from errors to warnings. By default, G++ effectively sets -pedantic-errors without -pedantic; this option reverses that. This behavior and this option are superseded by -pedantic, which works as it does for GNU C. On second reading, I'm not sure I understand it either. (And I am a native speaker. :-) I admit, I'm not a native speaker, so please correct me. Doesn't that mean, if you don't specify any pedantic, it defaults to -pedantic-errors for C++, but if you specify -pedantic, you don't get errors for warnings like it should be... ?? Specifying -pedantic doesn't turn errors into warnings for g++. I don't think the phrase 'this option reverses that' is intended to mean g++ swaps the meaning of -pendantic and -pendantic-errors; I think it is intended to mean -fpermissive downgrades many errors into warnings. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Hi ! http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning%20Options Hmm, that's exactly as in the info page. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/C---Dialect-Options.html#C++%20Dialect%20Options and search for permissive, to see the condition Alexander speaks of. Well, here it is: -fpermissive Downgrade messages about nonconformant code from errors to warnings. By default, G++ effectively sets -pedantic-errors without -pedantic; this option reverses that. This behavior and this option are superseded by -pedantic, which works as it does for GNU C. I admit, I'm not a native speaker, so please correct me. Doesn't that mean, if you don't specify any pedantic, it defaults to -pedantic-errors for C++, but if you specify -pedantic, you don't get errors for warnings like it should be... ?? Cheers Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Thursday 17 July 2003 22:50, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Here is how to reproduce the problem, Michael is talking about. Simply
try to build the kdelibs3 (or kdegraphic3, or kdenetwork3) port.
I've tried to come up with a less obscure testcase:
#include string
#include iostream
using namespace std;
int main ()
{
string astring=Hello World;
cout astring endl;
}
Now, if I compile this on 5.1-RELEASE with
c++ -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long -Wall -pedantic -W -Wpointer-arith
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wwrite-strings -DNDEBUG -DNO_DEBUG -O -pipe
-mcpu=pentiumpro -fno-check-new -L/usr/local/lib -I/usr/local/include
-I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -D_GETOPT_H -o helloworld
helloworld.cc
I get a plethora of warnings:
In file included from /usr/include/g++/memory:55,
from /usr/include/g++/string:48,
from helloworld.cc:1:
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:979: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:980: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:981: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:981: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:981: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
[and many, many more]
but it will compile. If I omit -pedantic, none of these warnings occur. The
thing is, in -CURRENT with the new gcc, all these warnings for some reason
become errors. The other thing is, if I try this with with a ports-compiled
g++32 on 4-STABLE, I don't get warnings at all, no matter if -pedantic is
specified or not.
So here's the questions for the experts:
- Why errors instead of warnings?
- Why do gcc's own bits seem to not conform to some kind of standard that it
tries to adhere to in 5-CURRENT but not in 4-STABLE?
- Who's to blame?
--
Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww
\--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_)
\ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free
\II II node
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [kde-freebsd] Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Friday 18 July 2003 10:32, I wrote: Now, if I compile this on 5.1-RELEASE with c++ -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long -Wall -pedantic -W -Wpointer-arith -Wmissing-prototypes -Wwrite-strings -DNDEBUG -DNO_DEBUG -O -pipe -mcpu=pentiumpro -fno-check-new -L/usr/local/lib -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -D_GETOPT_H -o helloworld helloworld.cc This commandline is copy-paste from the failing configure checks, however, just 'c++ -pedantic -O -pipe -o helloworld helloworld.cc' should probably do the trick just as well. -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Michael Nottebrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was one report of kdelibs' configure failing because of the weirdness of the new cc (3.3), that leads to errors instead of warnings with certain combinations of -W* and -pedantic options. gcc 3.3 is a lot stricter about some errors which earlier versions recovered from gracefully. Note that these are real errors, i.e. patently incorrect code which earlier versions of gcc happened to accept (sometimes by design, sometimes by mistake). DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
[cc: list trimmed]
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:32:51AM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
I've tried to come up with a less obscure testcase:
#include string
#include iostream
using namespace std;
int main ()
{
string astring=Hello World;
cout astring endl;
}
Now, if I compile this on 5.1-RELEASE with
c++ -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long -Wall -pedantic -W -Wpointer-arith
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wwrite-strings -DNDEBUG -DNO_DEBUG -O -pipe
-mcpu=pentiumpro -fno-check-new -L/usr/local/lib -I/usr/local/include
-I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -D_GETOPT_H -o helloworld
helloworld.cc
I get a plethora of warnings:
In file included from /usr/include/g++/memory:55,
from /usr/include/g++/string:48,
from helloworld.cc:1:
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:979: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:980: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:981: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:981: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
/usr/include/g++/bits/stl_alloc.h:981: warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of `
extern' on explicit instantiations
[and many, many more]
but it will compile. If I omit -pedantic, none of these warnings occur. The
thing is, in -CURRENT with the new gcc, all these warnings for some reason
become errors. The other thing is, if I try this with with a ports-compiled
g++32 on 4-STABLE, I don't get warnings at all, no matter if -pedantic is
specified or not.
So here's the questions for the experts:
- Why errors instead of warnings?
- Why do gcc's own bits seem to not conform to some kind of standard that it
tries to adhere to in 5-CURRENT but not in 4-STABLE?
- Who's to blame?
I haven't looked recently, but I seem to recall that the STL and other
C++ header bits that we install in /usr/include are from an older GCC
release than the compiler. On my pre-GCC 3.3 -CURRENT system:
System compiler:
% g++ -c -Wall -pedantic hello.cc
many warnings
GCC 3.2 from ports:
% g++32 -c -Wall -pedantic hello.cc
no warnings
GCC 3.3 from ports:
% g++33 -c -Wall -pedantic hello.cc
no warnings
I also recall lots of missing `typename's in the system headers that were
resolved in the actual GCC distribution.
Alexander, do the STL headers et. al. get updated with the rest of the
compiler chain?
Cheers,
--
Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Friday 18 July 2003 17:37, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:33:58 -0500 Jacques A. Vidrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also recall lots of missing `typename's in the system headers that were resolved in the actual GCC distribution. Alexander, do the STL headers et. al. get updated with the rest of the compiler chain? Yes. But libstdc++ itself lags a bit behind GCC features. The reason why GCC ports are not reporting any errors is because by default GCC suppresses warnings from system headers, and C++ headers are considered system. We disable this suppression in imported compiler. I guess the next question is whether this is fixable, maybe even by enabling said supression, at least for a short while. It seems the better fix than to go and remove -pedantic from all the helloworlds that may linger in the ports-tree. -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Friday 18 July 2003 18:14, Alexander Kabaev wrote: Configure ailing due to warnings is a real bug. What do you mean now? Configure is not failing because of warnings, it is failing because of _ERRORS_, errors occur in gcc's libstdc++ bits. They _used to be warnings_ before the import. -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
[For some reason I haven't seen Alexander's post yet, so I'm mixing replies here.] On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 06:12:10PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: On Friday 18 July 2003 17:37, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:33:58 -0500 Jacques A. Vidrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also recall lots of missing `typename's in the system headers that were resolved in the actual GCC distribution. Alexander, do the STL headers et. al. get updated with the rest of the compiler chain? Yes. But libstdc++ itself lags a bit behind GCC features. The reason why GCC ports are not reporting any errors is because by default GCC suppresses warnings from system headers, and C++ headers are considered system. We disable this suppression in imported compiler. Ah, that didn't occur to me. Duh. I guess we shall just wait for libstdc++ to catch up --- it looks like at least some of these issues are already fixed in GCC CVS. I guess the next question is whether this is fixable, maybe even by enabling said supression, at least for a short while. It seems the better fix than to go and remove -pedantic from all the helloworlds that may linger in the ports-tree. Even when libstdc++ is updated, we'll still be left with warnings from C-derived headers, such as the `long long' stuff. That should be fixable in some other fashion, but such discussion probably belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Friday 18 July 2003 19:23, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: Even when libstdc++ is updated, we'll still be left with warnings from C-derived headers, such as the `long long' stuff. Warnings are perfectly fine with me, since they don't break anything. Putting bandaid around ports to avoid _errors_ in libstdc++ on the other hand doesn't strike me as productive. -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Jacques A. Vidrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [For some reason I haven't seen Alexander's post yet, so I'm mixing replies here.] On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 06:12:10PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: On Friday 18 July 2003 17:37, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:33:58 -0500 Jacques A. Vidrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also recall lots of missing `typename's in the system headers that were resolved in the actual GCC distribution. Alexander, do the STL headers et. al. get updated with the rest of the compiler chain? Yes. But libstdc++ itself lags a bit behind GCC features. The reason why GCC ports are not reporting any errors is because by default GCC suppresses warnings from system headers, and C++ headers are considered system. We disable this suppression in imported compiler. [snip] Curiosity: Why does this suppression get disabled in the imported compiler? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
[snip] Curiosity: Why does this suppression get disabled in the imported compiler? I guess justification was to see warnings about FreeBSD's own header files. We dont want to hide warnings in them, we want to fix issues warnings report. C++ headers just a side effect of that decision. -- Alexander Kabaev ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:07:55PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: Content-Description: signed data On Friday 18 July 2003 18:14, Alexander Kabaev wrote: Configure ailing due to warnings is a real bug. What do you mean now? Configure is not failing because of warnings, it is failing because of _ERRORS_, errors occur in gcc's libstdc++ bits. They _used to be warnings_ before the import. Then configure runs gcc with wrong parameters. In GCC 3.3 -pedantic implies -pedantic-error, unless -fpermissive is specified too. -- Alexander Kabaev ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Hi ! Then configure runs gcc with wrong parameters. In GCC 3.3 -pedantic implies -pedantic-error, unless -fpermissive is specified too. ??? The info page doesn't say so. If one can't trust the GNU info pages - what a mess, considered that they refuse to maintain proper manpages either... Confused. Please enlighten me. Cheers Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Friday 18 July 2003 21:16, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:07:55PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: Content-Description: signed data On Friday 18 July 2003 18:14, Alexander Kabaev wrote: Configure ailing due to warnings is a real bug. What do you mean now? Configure is not failing because of warnings, it is failing because of _ERRORS_, errors occur in gcc's libstdc++ bits. They _used to be warnings_ before the import. Then configure runs gcc with wrong parameters. In GCC 3.3 -pedantic implies -pedantic-error, unless -fpermissive is specified too. That's perfectly fine for configure to do, since it would work if gcc wouldn't shoot its own foot by failing in libstdc++. What's the rationale of changing around these commandline parameters anyway I'm asking myself. But that's offtopic. -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
??? The info page doesn't say so. If one can't trust the GNU info pages - what a mess, considered that they refuse to maintain proper manpages either... Confused. Please enlighten me. What kind of enlightenment are you looking for? gcc mailing list address is not secret, I suggest you to take it there if you feel so inclined. GCC _do_ maintain man pages, but in the manner which makes them very inconvenient to import into FreeBSD repo. Since they are now auto-generated from texinfo sources, we now need to merge local FreeBSD changes into .texi files. Wading though merge conflicts in texi files after each import is hardly my idea of fun, but I will not stop you for trying :) -- Alexander Kabaev ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Hi ! What kind of enlightenment are you looking for? 0.17 e.g. 8-)) Seriously, I didn't mean to piss off anyone. Just wanted to learn about the *reason* of this incoherence. I apologize if the irony was way too masked. gcc mailing list address is not secret, I suggest you to take it there if you feel so inclined. See above. Wading though merge conflicts in texi files after each import is hardly my idea of fun, but I will not stop you for trying :) Well, how much worse is that compared to a `mergemaster -i' orgy from a 4.2 to a 4.8 ? Ugh, don't, no, let me be, argh... Sidestep: I *love* to see that my CPUTYPE=p4 is not downgraded anymore. Cheers Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Curiosity: Why does this suppression get disabled in the imported compiler? I guess justification was to see warnings about FreeBSD's own header files. We dont want to hide warnings in them, we want to fix issues warnings report. Ok. This makes sense. However, if these warnings are disguising more important warnings in some ports, may I suggest people looking to fix warnings in those ports try compiling with -Wno-system-headers, which I believe will disable the warnings from gcc's headers. Of course anyone looking to fix warnings in headers should leave -Wsystem-headers on. C++ headers just a side effect of that decision. I guess this is evidence that #pragma GCC system_header isn't quite enough. :-) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Peter Kadau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi ! Then configure runs gcc with wrong parameters. In GCC 3.3 -pedantic implies -pedantic-error, unless -fpermissive is specified too. ??? The info page doesn't say so. If one can't trust the GNU info pages - what a mess, considered that they refuse to maintain proper manpages either... Confused. Please enlighten me. You can look at the online docs: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning%20Options and search for -pendantic for the general description, and: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/C---Dialect-Options.html#C++%20Dialect%20Options and search for permissive, to see the condition Alexander speaks of. (I'm new to FreeBSD, but I get the impression the FreeBSD gcc33 port changes a few gcc behaviors. So those docs won't be perfect. But they aren't in the first place, and are better than nothing until some does the hard work merging in documentation files.) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Hi ! s/gcc-3.3/ports/ issues and we are in agreement. alright, `port compile issues raised with the adoption of gcc-3.3' Patches to fix broken ports are welcome. Looking at AbiWord2 I suspect this has to be pushed upstream in some cases. OK, here is a - ahem - patch for aspell: --- prog/checker_string.hpp.origTue Sep 24 03:34:52 2002 +++ prog/checker_string.hpp Thu Jul 17 20:02:58 2003 @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ // it at http://www.gnu.org/. #include stdio.h +#include g++/cassert #include aspell.h It works on my colleague's and my current and my stable. But maybe it's not the right way (tm) (to 'do-it) :-) But should I post that on -ports, -current or send it to the ports maintainer ? I'd rather avoid tracking -ports... Is something like this expected, i.e., certain combinations of -W* and -pedantic to produce errors when they didn't before? Yes, though -ansi and -pedantic are not that troublesome I think. A real killer is -Werror. But -W* is not the only source of compile errors - see above. Cheers Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Thursday 17 July 2003 22:11, Alexander Kabaev wrote: -Werror? As doctor said: if it hurts, DON'T DO THAT. In the kdelibs case, it's definitely _not_ -Werror (I wouldn't complain about that, obviously). Mikhail, can you recap which combinations exactly trigger what? -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On 17 Jul 2003 22:07:37 +0200, Peter Kadau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi ! s/gcc-3.3/ports/ issues and we are in agreement. alright, `port compile issues raised with the adoption of gcc-3.3' Patches to fix broken ports are welcome. Looking at AbiWord2 I suspect this has to be pushed upstream in some cases. OK, here is a - ahem - patch for aspell: --- prog/checker_string.hpp.origTue Sep 24 03:34:52 2002 +++ prog/checker_string.hpp Thu Jul 17 20:02:58 2003 @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ // it at http://www.gnu.org/. #include stdio.h +#include g++/cassert #include aspell.h It works on my colleague's and my current and my stable. But maybe it's not the right way (tm) (to 'do-it) :-) But should I post that on -ports, -current or send it to the ports maintainer ? I'd rather avoid tracking -ports... snip But, this patch doesn't work/fix to me on yesterday -CURRENT. Here's what I get error following: = In file included from check_funs.hpp:10, from aspell.cpp:25: checker_string.hpp:8:23: g++/cassert: No such file or directory gmake[1]: *** [aspell.o] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/textproc/aspell/work/aspell- 0.50.3/prog' gmake: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 *** Error code 2 Stop in /usr/ports/textproc/aspell. = Without this patch, I get error following: = checker_string.cpp: In member function `void CheckerString::replace(acommon::ParmString)': checker_string.cpp:113: error: `assert' undeclared (first use this function) checker_string.cpp:113: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in.) gmake[1]: *** [checker_string.o] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/textproc/aspell/work/aspell- 0.50.3/prog' gmake: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 *** Error code 2 Stop in /usr/ports/textproc/aspell. *** Error code 1 = I am willing to test the patches if one of you have any. Cheers, Mezz -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
Hi ! Sorry for that... That was my pre-get-rid-of-g++-workaround - how embarrassing ! Alexander pointed out in private (thank you), that this was a failure. I am willing to test the patches if one of you have any. Try that instead: --- prog/checker_string.hpp.origTue Sep 24 03:34:52 2002 +++ prog/checker_string.hpp Thu Jul 17 22:37:38 2003 @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ // it at http://www.gnu.org/. #include stdio.h +#include assert.h #include aspell.h And *please* don't ask why I didn't use assert.h in the first place. *flush* Cheers anyway Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:18:38 +0200 Michael Nottebrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = On Thursday 17 July 2003 22:11, Alexander Kabaev wrote: = = -Werror? As doctor said: if it hurts, DON'T DO THAT. = = In the kdelibs case, it's definitely _not_ -Werror =Whatever it is, I haven't seen one shred of evidence of GCC issues in =your messages, just complaints. Just an example: bad code generated is =GCC issue, more strict C++ compliance requirements - not. So what of =these two did you mean? Hi, Alexander! First of all, thank you very much for integrating the new GCC into FreeBSD. The pentium4-specific fixes and optimizations, as well as other compiler's features and improvements are much appreciated. Here is how to reproduce the problem, Michael is talking about. Simply try to build the kdelibs3 (or kdegraphic3, or kdenetwork3) port. It will die soon enough with a C++ error. It look like, indeed, a stricter C++ compliance issue, but it is not, because: . it is triggered by something in /usr/include/c++/3.3 itself . it goes away if you remove the ``-pedantic'' from the Makefiles (find work/kdelibs* -name Makefile | \ xargs sed -i -e 's,-pedantic,,') Note, that it is, indeed, just -pedantic, not the -pedantic-errors. So much so, I was suggesting to our KDE team to add the post-patch entry to the bsd.kde.mk, that would remove ``-pedantic'' automaticly. Yours, -mi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On 17 Jul 2003 22:47:02 +0200, Peter Kadau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi ! Sorry for that... That was my pre-get-rid-of-g++-workaround - how embarrassing ! Alexander pointed out in private (thank you), that this was a failure. I am willing to test the patches if one of you have any. Try that instead: --- prog/checker_string.hpp.origTue Sep 24 03:34:52 2002 +++ prog/checker_string.hpp Thu Jul 17 22:37:38 2003 @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ // it at http://www.gnu.org/. #include stdio.h +#include assert.h #include aspell.h And *please* don't ask why I didn't use assert.h in the first place. *flush* Yes, that did it.. Thanks!! :-) Cheers, Mezz Cheers anyway Peter -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 10:09:05PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: Content-Description: signed data On Wednesday 16 July 2003 17:07, Alexander Kabaev wrote: s/gcc-3.3/ports/ issues and we are in agreement. Patches to fix broken ports are welcome. Kris is doing a fine job generating a list of what needs to be fixed with his cluster packabe building runs. There was one report of kdelibs' configure failing because of the weirdness of the new cc (3.3), that leads to errors instead of warnings with certain combinations of -W* and -pedantic options. Is something like this expected, i.e., certain combinations of -W* and -pedantic to produce errors when they didn't before? Hell yeah :) Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
gcc-3.3 issues
Hi !
Some port builds bail out with errors.
(Of course they do, that was expected.)
This is definitely gcc-3.3 related.
(They did build on 5.1-Release and
do build on 4.8-Stable.)
Would it be of interest for anyone to post them
or is it way too early for that ?
('Wait until 5.2-Release is out ?')
Cheers
Peter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netzwerk- und Systemadministration
Campus der Max-Planck-Institute Tübingen
Tel: +49 7071 601598
Fax: +49 7071 601616
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
s/gcc-3.3/ports/ issues and we are in agreement. Patches to fix broken ports are welcome. Kris is doing a fine job generating a list of what needs to be fixed with his cluster packabe building runs. -- Alexander Kabaev ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.3 issues
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 17:07, Alexander Kabaev wrote: s/gcc-3.3/ports/ issues and we are in agreement. Patches to fix broken ports are welcome. Kris is doing a fine job generating a list of what needs to be fixed with his cluster packabe building runs. There was one report of kdelibs' configure failing because of the weirdness of the new cc (3.3), that leads to errors instead of warnings with certain combinations of -W* and -pedantic options. Is something like this expected, i.e., certain combinations of -W* and -pedantic to produce errors when they didn't before? -- Michael Nottebrock \KDE on FreeBSD\,ww \--- \ ,wWWCybaWW_) \ http://freebsd.kde.org \ `WSheepW'free \II II node pgp0.pgp Description: signature
