[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [help-GIFT] Gift and gcc 3

From: Wolfgang Mueller
Subject: Re: [help-GIFT] Gift and gcc 3
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:18:36 +0100

On Sunday 02 December 2001 23:29, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> > > Actually, you are right, the problem is with the string classes and
> > > persists with the newest version 3.0.2 of gcc and with the CVS version
> > > of gift. Now it would be interesting to know whether this is a gcc bug
> > > or whether strings are used in a way not conforming to the standards in
> > > gift.
> >
> > Dear Andreas, thanks for coming back to us. Could you check if the header
> > is actually *there*? In the meanwhile I tried to install gcc on a sun
> > (from sources), and had the usual compile error (on strings). I checked
> > the installation to see what's wrong with the header, and in fact it was
> > not there (in my buggy installation), and rightly the installation had
> > complained about files being exsistant already and not being able to
> > install.
> >
> > I would be interested in hearing more from you.
> Dear Wolfgang,
Dear Andreas,
> sorry for not coming back to you. I had meant to track down the problem,
Same to you ...
> but was too busy during the past month. Not having used the standard string
Yesyes, the november full of students and deadlines.
> class before turned out to be fatal to my motivation to follow the string
> ramifications. Actually, I am equipped with too many string header files!
> My system is a mixture between Mandrake 8.0, 8.1 and Cooker; gcc and the
> standard c++ library in particular are from Cooker. The following header
> files look most promising:

I see this point. Yes, the <string> is the one we want. I have recently 
changed the distro I am using, and the new one has a gcc 3.0. I will try that 
in my CFT.

> I guess the very last file is the crucial one; unless _CPP_STRING is
> defined (how would one know?), it includes bits/std_string.h, which itself
> triggers a cascade of inclusions (unless other symbols are defined).

Strange. In any case I have to look at it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]