Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:30:32 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: archie@whistle.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Subject: Re: c++ error Message-ID: <20000914083032.B16624@spawn.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <20000913230227.A15302@spawn.nectar.com>; from n@nectar.com on Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:02:28PM -0500 References: <200009140019.RAA04988@bubba.whistle.com> <200009140036.RAA01292@vashon.polstra.com> <20000913230227.A15302@spawn.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:02:28PM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > Please see PR bin/13383 before doing anything like this. It addresses > a similar situation. I'll comment more tomorrow after some sleep :-) I knew I needed some sleep. It ``addressess'' the exact same situation. In summary, gcc has a kluge to work around a bug in the C++ standard. It looks like you and Justin have both found edge cases where the gcc kluge loses. If you can come up with a reasonable test case that reproduces the problem, perhaps it can be PR'd to the GCC folks? As per the PR, I'm against #ifdef'ing structures like ip_opts for C++, since it is likely that a later C++ standard will be corrected. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000914083032.B16624>