[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GUB fail with smob templates

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: GUB fail with smob templates
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:16:24 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>

Fails compiling for a different target now.  Logfile attached again.

/home/gub/gub/target/freebsd-64/src/ error: invalid operands of types 'bool' and 'int' to binary 'operator=='

So now we cannot compare a bool with an int?  What is this, Pascal?

The error message also does not fit the current line in smobs.tcc:

   136   if (static_cast<SCM (Super::*)()>(&Super::mark_smob) !=
   137       static_cast<SCM (Super::*)()>(&Smob_base<Super>::mark_smob))

Previous versions had
   136   if (Super::type_p_name_ != 0)

which is still not the best fit, but at least there is an integer

I agree with what you say about the strange error message. Just to confirm, though: lines 136-7 as given in the error message are the lines to be found in smobs.tcc.

Do you reckon we should continue to try to get this fixed, or just
bite the bullet and update gcc and see if that works?

It would appear that the versions of GCC are somewhat basic regarding
their template support.  Now what is really surprising to me is that
2.19.15 went ahead without much of a hitch.  Because the changes of
2.19.16, as compared to 2.19.15, seem to be more on the surface.

Since we _did_ get 2.19.15 through, 2.19.16 should be a breeze.
However, the current batch of error messages is totally baffling to me.
The current error messages just do not appear to match the flagged lines
at all.

So I'm poking around quite in the dark.  It's probably silly to ask
since you are not building for the first time, but you are sure that you
are working from the current origin/release/unstable ?

Had me worried.  I checked and I am.

To me it looks like updating gcc to some newer version might make sense.
Starting with version 2.19.15, we are relying more on templates than
before.  And working with gcc versions that go bonkers in entirely
puzzling ways is likely going to cause more trouble than the one we are
having right now anyway.

I'll start looking at it now.

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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