From: "Rossz Vámos-Wentworth" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Building cross - yet again Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:49:39 -0800 Lines: 47 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.239.198.14 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.239.198.14 Message-ID: <38b207d1_2@news.jps.net> X-Trace: 21 Feb 2000 19:51:45 -0800, 209.239.198.14 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.63.224.240 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com I've been able to mostly work past the "size_t" conflict problem. I found it defined as "unsigned long " in one place, and "long unsigned int" in another. I changed the second to match the first and it now gets further along in the build. I narrowed it down to a single file that won't build. When "make" launches this (all one line): ./xgcc-B/djgpp/cross/h8300-hms/bin/ -B./ -I/djgpp/cross/h8300-hms/include -O 2 -c ./cp/tinfo.cc I get these errors: In file included from ./cp/tinfo.cc:32: include/new:28: `operator new' takes type `size_t' as first parameter include/new:29: `operator new' takes type `size_t' as first parameter include/new:32: `operator new' takes type `size_t' as first parameter include/new:33: `operator new' takes type `size_t' as first parameter include/new:38: `operator new' takes type `size_t' as first parameter include/new:39: `operator new' takes type `size_t' as first parameter I examined "new", and it looks just fine. All the declarations look normal. Here are the lines that are producing errors. void *operator new (size_t) throw (std::bad_alloc); void *operator new[] (size_t) throw (std::bad_alloc); void *operator new (size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) throw(); void *operator new[] (size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) throw(); inline void *operator new(size_t, void *place) throw() { return place; } inline void *operator new[](size_t, void *place) throw() { return place; } I don't think it has anything to do with the definition of size_t, but I am at a loss as to what is the actual problem. As an experiment, I added "typedef unsigned long size_t;" to the file "new", but it did not make a difference. Again, thanks. Rossz