From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3217 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2011 12:20:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 3207 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2011 12:20:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:20:20 +0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:20:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg01738.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #84 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:14:17 UTC --- > --- Comment #83 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-21 12:08:32 UTC --- > Ok, thus I marked 30112 as blocking this, I'll try to raise its priority. Fine, thanks. > Otherwise Rainer, ok, in terms of producing an actual patch I was addressing > mostly Marc, but, unless I'm badly misremembering, something *should* be > special about Solaris, eg I'm pretty sure I can fix the macro for systems using > glibc without major problems. Thus it would be great if you could coordinate IIUC the major problem is that the Solaris headers (at least since Solaris 10) are (fully?) C++ aware, while glibc is not, so we were running into conflicts. I brought the issue and my findings with fixing Solaris headers to avoid the conflicts up with the Solaris C++ and libc engineers, and there was major opposition to `fixing' them for the benefit of libstdc++ if the problem is mostly on the libstdc++ side. > with Marc in terms of extensive testing on Solaris... Sure, no problem: I've got an extensive test farm over here, from Solaris 8 to 11, both x86 and SPARC. As soon as something is ready for testing, I'm prepared :-) Rainer