Thread

1. RC1 finally wrapped ...

   Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-01-22T18:33:54Z

   Its wrap'd and on the main ftp site now, to be propogated as mirrors pull
   it ... will announce tomorrow, to give the mirrors a chance to grab, but
   if anyone wants to take a quick peek, make sure everything looks okay that
   would be cool ... file sizes look about right based on the past betas ...
   
   
   
   

2. C++ problems with RC1

   Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com> — 2002-01-23T16:49:09Z

   The autoconf test for C++ doesn't work with standard-enforcing
   compilers....
   
   
   [teg@halden teg]$ cat foo.C
   #include <string>
   
   int main(int argc, char **argv){
   	string foo="xyzzy";
   	return 0;
   }
   [teg@halden teg]$ c++ foo.C -o foo
   foo.C: In function `int main(int, char**)':
   foo.C:4: `string' undeclared (first use this function)
   foo.C:4: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it 
      appears in.)
   foo.C:4: parse error before `=' token
   [teg@halden teg]$
   
   The standard mandates that string is accessed in one of the following
   ways:
   
   [teg@halden teg]$ cat foo2.C 
   #include <string>
   
   using namespace std;
   
   int main(int argc, char **argv){
   	string foo="xyzzy";
   	return 0;
   }
   [teg@halden teg]$ cat foo3.C
   #include <string>
   
   int main(int argc, char **argv){
   	std::string foo="xyzzy";
   	return 0;
   }
   [teg@halden teg]$ 
   
   Some compilers accept the old way (and namespaces have been available
   for quite some time now), others (like upcoming gcc 3.1) don't.
   -- 
   Trond Eivind Glomsrød
   Red Hat, Inc.
   
   

3. Re: C++ problems with RC1

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2002-01-24T19:42:32Z

   teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
   > The autoconf test for C++ doesn't work with standard-enforcing
   > compilers....
   
   Exactly what part of it doesn't work?  AFAICT, the first test is
   just to see if 
   	#include <string>
   succeeds, and if that works then we do not try the section you seem
   to be blaming.  So it looks to me like a compiler that conforms
   to the C++-standard-of-the-month should work fine: both
   HAVE_CXX_STRING_HEADER and HAVE_NAMESPACE_STD should become set.
   What are you seeing?
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

4. Re: C++ problems with RC1

   Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com> — 2002-01-24T19:47:12Z

   On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
   
   > teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
   > > The autoconf test for C++ doesn't work with standard-enforcing
   > > compilers....
   > 
   > Exactly what part of it doesn't work?  AFAICT, the first test is
   > just to see if 
   > 	#include <string>
   > succeeds, and if that works then we do not try the section you seem
   > to be blaming.  So it looks to me like a compiler that conforms
   > to the C++-standard-of-the-month should work fine: both
   > HAVE_CXX_STRING_HEADER and HAVE_NAMESPACE_STD should become set.
   > What are you seeing?
   
   I saw it failing... however, the cause for this failing was the use of 
   multiline literals (cc_version). The compilers warns about this being 
   deprecated, and autoconf thinks this means the test failed. See the other 
   patch I posted yesterday.
   
   -- 
   Trond Eivind Glomsrød
   Red Hat, Inc.
   
   
   

5. Re: C++ problems with RC1

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2002-01-24T19:56:10Z

   =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trond_Eivind_Glomsr=F8d?= <teg@redhat.com> writes:
   >> What are you seeing?
   
   > I saw it failing... however, the cause for this failing was the use of 
   > multiline literals (cc_version). The compilers warns about this being 
   > deprecated, and autoconf thinks this means the test failed.
   
   Ah.  So with the "head -1" fix we should be good to go?
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

6. Re: C++ problems with RC1

   Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com> — 2002-01-24T19:59:02Z

   On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
   
   > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trond_Eivind_Glomsr=F8d?= <teg@redhat.com> writes:
   > >> What are you seeing?
   > 
   > > I saw it failing... however, the cause for this failing was the use of 
   > > multiline literals (cc_version). The compilers warns about this being 
   > > deprecated, and autoconf thinks this means the test failed.
   > 
   > Ah.  So with the "head -1" fix we should be good to go?
   
   Autoconfwise, yes.
   
   -- 
   Trond Eivind Glomsrød
   Red Hat, Inc.