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

Bug#287466: g++-3.4 is confused by -L/usr/lib



Package: g++-3.4
Version: 3.4.3-6
Severity: normal


g++-3.4 seems to be confused by -L/usr/lib and is unable to locate part
of the standard library.
I discovered the problem while working with libxml2 (-L/usr/lib comes
from xml2-config --libs).

This is a minimal test case:

--- p.cc ---
#include <list>

int main(void) {
	std::list<int> l;

	l.push_back(1);	/* KO */
}
----

Works:
kronos:/tmp$ g++-3.4 -Wall -op p.cc

Fails:
kronos:/tmp$ g++-3.4 -L/usr/lib -Wall -op p.cc
/tmp/ccoZVXoN.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNSt4listIiSaIiEE9_M_insertESt14_List_iteratorIiERKi+0x24): In function `std::list<int, std::allocator<int> >::_M_insert(std::_List_iterator<int>, int const&)':
: undefined reference to `std::_List_node_base::hook(std::_List_node_base*)'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

The error doesn't happen with other -L flags (eg. -L/usr/local/lib).

Note that I've another gcc installed:

ii  gcc                        3.3.5-1                    The GNU C compiler
ii  g++                        3.3.5-1                    The GNU C++ compiler
ii  libstdc++5-3.3-dev         3.3.5-5                    The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (development files)

and this one works:

kronos:/tmp$ g++-3.3 -L/usr/lib -Wall -op p.cc

I've also tested other containers (vector, deque, stack) and AFAICS only
std::list is affected.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-rc3
Locale: LANG=en_US.ISO-8859-15, LC_CTYPE=en_US.ISO-8859-15 (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Versions of packages g++-3.4 depends on:
ii  gcc-3.4                     3.4.3-6      The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-3.4-base                3.4.3-6      The GNU Compiler Collection (base 
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-19 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libstdc++6-dev              3.4.3-6      The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (d

-- no debconf information



Reply to: