{@:A~/j1}gTt4e7-n*F?.Rl^
F\{jehn7.KrO{!7=:(@J~].[{v9!1qZY,{EJxg6?Er4Y7Ng2\FtZW?r\c.!4DXH5PWpgaha
+r0NzP?vnz:e/knOY)PI-
X-Boydie: NO
From: Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Norman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: broken URLs in /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0-base/C++/README.C++
X-Mailer: VM
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
'lo, sorry to bother you.
gcc 2.x compiles C++ source files fine, but gcc-3.0 doesn't. (g++-3.0 seems
to work okay). Is this a deliberate change?
(trying to compile C++ with gcc-3.0 fails with undefined references to
new and delete)
I haven't
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:19:47PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
I haven't had any problems with gcc-3.0 compiling or linking executables
(including C++). If you're using gcc-3.0 to compile C++ sources, then
you'll need to pass it at least -lstc++ at link time (and possibly quite
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 05:39:12PM +, Jason Williams wrote:
Fair enough; it's just that old gcc never seemed to require that.
Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
Yes. :-)
Some library functions are implicitly called by the compiler/linker/runtime.
Older versions of
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
Fair enough; it's just that old gcc never seemed to require that.
Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the
new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, meaning
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the
new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, meaning that it could
satisfy the symbol without libstdc++ (I just checked...2.95.x's libgcc has
a
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
All true. Just as an addendum: if a user only needs support code (new,
delete, etc) and doesn't feel like linking against the full libstdc++,
the support code also exists in a separate library, libsupc++.
7 matches
Mail list logo
