Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/09/21/20:13:06
--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001
at 12:49:50PM +1000, Danny Smith wrote:
> > --- "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk> wrote: > Date: Fri, 21 Sep
> >2001 02:34:52 +0100 (BST)
> >> From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
> >> To: Danny Smith <danny_r_smith_2001 AT yahoo DOT co DOT nz>
> >> CC: GCC Patches <gcc-patches AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Refresh]: patch for C++ parser bug with function
> >> attributes
> >Joseph's patch is here:
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg00774.html
> >
> >I will start on this. Any interest in backport to 3.0.1, or should I
> >just target 3.1? I'm hoping it may solve some of the other
> attribute
> >problems (stdcall and dllimport) in C++ classes with 3.0.1.
>
> Do you know what the release target date for 3.1 might be? Isn't it
> pretty far in the future?
I don't know. When its ready is the usual answer. I recall two years
being mentioned somewhere.
3.0.2 is scheduled for October.
But the C++ dllimport/stdcall attribute bug is deep in the C++ lexer,
and many changes to mainline in this area since 3.0.1 release.
Backporting this particular patch is not trivial.
Under mingw at least, 3.0.1 works reasonably with C, F77 using static
or dll libs. C++ has serious problems with dllimport classes and with
stdcall methods in classes (ie C++ COM interface). Bob Wilsons patch
fixes one stdcall problem. 3.0.1 also needs much work on libstdc++
(cin doesn't work for me), but that is separate isssue. Alternative is
availbale: 3.0.1 can build a working STLPort-4.5 libstdc++ (based on
SGI) as static lib. I like the latter for mingw because it has also
been ported to MSVC and so has good native file io support.
My initial reaction is to focus effort on mainline, and live with lack
of C++ dll support in 3.0.x. But then I'm biased by my C++ code base
which is template-oriented and doesn't really use C++ libs that much.
Also, it keeps me in touch with current progress rather than August
2001. Maybe not the right attitude for a professional developer but I'm
a professional sheep farmer not a programme developer
>
> It would be nice to have a fully operational 3.x version of gcc for
> windows, though.
>
"It would be nice" doesn't belong on this list, does it.
> cgf
http://travel.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Travel
- Got Itchy feet? Get inspired!
- Raw text -