X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=6NriTllbPhPVopqJfHiOcXxTgg/fxP1xhN5DkY3JxyE=;
	b=ZALeydRoE3FXDDcwALjjPF3eocDKpMh0NAUBaMHry4NtvKGFks2zz0jfbdIuon73Qq
	2Wz+W0YyfK+e9HEJ/4M6ZbS0ZSRgUYGCCc8GiC0JDrKY2FAiE62bWF3d6hiWIX2HIZDS
	JpKbKt9NIQzKKGuq62vP1o3Dx/lCbel7iWbdBr9POf83WscMsaRRegDaOQzPgR8RW/MT
	cW07V4kOnrqHzLuF+CmkZH4o3OqZJY8RWoSA4sxwNMpmFf4rW3L8hqQzH6oxwmVq2fbH
	wZ5zZtopeKZ/ak5B6Cg0plr5vVLjC0MZGY472rZlD+7hton4OG+4NIH9aB2wtrYgXY8W
	F/1g==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.60.133.102 with SMTP id pb6mr34360260oeb.50.1433450446249;
	Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAA2C=vApm9U-fHJHgQwrZF7-WBvoGeBRvc1iMF2agNErqqq_mA@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<55673F0B DOT 1090103 AT iki DOT fi>
	<83twuwwshg DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<55675040 DOT 9030008 AT iki DOT fi>
	<556F6E49 DOT 8010006 AT gmx DOT de>
	<556FCCDF DOT 7080005 AT iki DOT fi>
	<83bngvr0ef DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<557078B1 DOT 9040004 AT iki DOT fi>
	<201506041613 DOT t54GDT8m014488 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<5570B1F7 DOT 1070509 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vApm9U-fHJHgQwrZF7-WBvoGeBRvc1iMF2agNErqqq_mA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:40:46 -0700
Message-ID:	<CAB9Rao-GhH0eK_r3S=i1VzADFqrHfjf4U7OdJAPK0AkH8SgFWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: DJGPP v2.05: some thoughts
From:	"Louis Santillan (lpsantil AT gmail DOT com)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	"djgpp AT delorie DOT com" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

This was my bug report from a couple weeks ago.  The work around is to
use the "gnu" variants of the standards (e.g., `-std=gnu++11`, etc.).
At least with the djgpp headers as they stand today.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)
<djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> On 6/4/15, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2015 07:13 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>>> Yes, I suggested it and posted suggestion to get some feedback. I
>>>> took however Your notice that it would change building other
>>>> packages into account. I guess we need to get 2.05 out (2.03 is
>>>> simply already too ancient) and we do not need another eternal
>>>> beta. That's why I would prefer not to integrate changes into 2.05.
>>> And I added that a quick 2.05 followed by a 2.06 was OK (and better
>>> than a multi-year beta)
>>>
>>> It's a side-effect of Charles's Law.  If we ship an official 2.05,
>>> we'll actually hear about the bugs, and can fix them in 2.06.
>>>
>>>
>> Branch is created for v2.05.
>>
>> Shortly after that found a showstopper bug:
>>
>> Konsole output
>> echo '#include <iostream>' | i586-pc-msdosdjgpp-gcc -c -x c++ -std=c++11 -
>> -o /dev/null
>>
>> (hint: replace i586-pc-msdosdjgpp-gcc with simple gcc for native build)
>>
>> Works OK with with -std=c++03, fails with -std=c++11 and -std=c++14
>>
>> The problem is that our errno.h gets almost completely excluded
>>
>> Andris
>>
>> PS. following seems to workaround the problem:
>>
>> Konsole output
>> --- errno.h.orig        2015-06-04 23:12:46.745892048 +0300
>> +++ errno.h     2015-06-04 23:13:13.382210708 +0300
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>>
>> #endif /* (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) || !__STRICT_ANSI__ */
>>
>> -#ifndef __STRICT_ANSI__
>> +#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || defined(__cplusplus)
>>
>> #define E2BIG          3
>> #define EACCES         4
>>
>
> Do we really have to confine those errnos to !__STRICT_ANSI__ ?

- Raw text -