[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#133435: [Fwd: [Patch] (3.0.4pre, arm) : get libstdc++ working]



Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4ds2-0pre020209
Severity: serious
Tags: patch

See below.  C++ certainly does seem to be busted pretty badly at the
moment.


--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

following patch fixes the behavior of g++ for arm.
It is against the gcc-3_0-branch.


The difference can be seen by comparing following testresults :

before :

  <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-02/msg00075.html>

after :

  <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-02/msg00102.html>

This should also resolve the problem of compiling a
simple 'hello world' c++ program.

IMHO, this patch is definitely needed for gcc-3.0.4 !

Greetings,
--
Jeroen Dobbelaere
Embedded Software Engineer

ACUNIA Embedded Solutions
http://www.acunia.com




diff -rC5 gcc/gcc/ChangeLog gcc-fixed/gcc/ChangeLog
*** gcc/gcc/ChangeLog	Wed Feb  6 09:46:25 2002
--- gcc-fixed/gcc/ChangeLog	Wed Feb  6 09:45:42 2002
***************
*** 1,5 ****
--- 1,11 ----
+ 2002-02-06  Jeroen Dobbelaere  <jeroen.dobbelaere@acunia.com>
+
+ 	* config/arm/linux-elf.h: added definition of _GNU_SOURCE to
+ 	CPLUSPLUS_CPP_SPEC, so that glibc and libstdc++ work together
+ 	(also see config/linux.h)
+
  2002-02-05  Dale Johannesen  <dalej@apple.com>

  	* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_cmove):  Fix mode of
  	if_then_else to match result, not operands.

Only in gcc-fixed/gcc: ChangeLog~
diff -rC5 gcc/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h gcc-fixed/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h
*** gcc/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h	Wed Feb  6 09:46:35 2002
--- gcc-fixed/gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h	Wed Feb  6 09:44:12 2002
***************
*** 263,267 ****
--- 263,271 ----
    fprintf (STREAM, "\tbl\tmcount%s\n", NEED_PLT_RELOC ? "(PLT)" : "");	\
  }

  #undef  CC1_SPEC
  #define CC1_SPEC "%{profile:-p}"
+
+ /* Copied from config/linux.h, needed for libstdc++v3.  */
+ #undef CPLUSPLUS_CPP_SPEC
+ #define CPLUSPLUS_CPP_SPEC "-D_GNU_SOURCE %(cpp)"




--- End Message ---

Reply to: