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

Looking for help with HPPA / gcc3.0 Bug 136257



Hello,

I'm looking for help with HPPA / GCC 3.0

The package is srecord, and I'm having trouble transitioning it to G++ 3.0.
I've ironed out most of the string bugs, and the only (?) problem
remaining, relates to virtual functions.  I know alot about eprom burning
and various binary formats, which is what the package is for, but I'm only
a c++ beginner.

I've heard a GCC 3.0 transition FAQ exists, but I didn't find it on
gcc.gnu.org.

If anyone can provide any help with GCC 3.0 and virtual functions
(especially as relates to building on HPPA) I'd appreciate it.  Even just
URLs to the "transition FAQ", would be helpful.

This problem may either be a lack of G++ 3.0 knowledge on my part, or it
may be that I've been staring at this problem for so long, that I just need
another pair of eyes to see what I'm missing.

Thanks!

Package: srecord
Version: 1.9-3
Severity: normal

Hello,

I've tried my best with srecord trying to get it to compile using
gcc 3.0.

I have fixed all the "easy" problems and I've run out of ideas.

You can see the virtual function build errors at:

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?
&pkg=srecord&ver=1.9-3&arch=hppa&stamp=1012191015&file=log&as=raw

c++  -g -O2 -Ilib/common -Iinclude -c \
        lib/common/quit.cc
             lib/common/quit.cc: In member function `virtual void
                quit::fatal_error_errno_v(const char*, void*)':
                lib/common/quit.cc:86: no matching function for call to
                   `std::strstream::vform(const char*&, void*&)'
                   lib/common/quit.cc: In member function `virtual void
                   quit::warning_v(const
                      char*, void*)':
                          lib/common/quit.cc:106: no matching function for
call
                          to
                             `std::strstream::vform(const char*&, void*&)'
                             make[1]: *** [lib/common/quit.o] Error 1



Reply to: