From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32403 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2010 17:24:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 32393 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2010 17:24:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_CX 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; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:24:15 +0000 From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/46333] problems with configure -enable-build-with-cxx -disable-bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned 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: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:24:00 -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: 2010-11/txt/msg00750.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46333 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-11-06 17:24:11 UTC --- On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, jay.krell at cornell dot edu wrote: > One person's machine has g++ 3.3. In the discussions of what the requirements would be for building with C++, I think it was generally accepted that the answer would be the intersection of C++98 with what is supported by some baseline GCC version - and that at least 3.4, maybe 4.0 or 4.1, would be OK to take as that baseline. (PPL is a C++ library that won't build with versions older than 4.0, so anyone building a Graphite-enabled compiler is using a C++ compiler more recent than 3.4 already.) Yes, we should have a configure test that rules out known-too-old compilers. > Another's g++ produces executables that don't run, can't find libstdc++. For build = host, a configure test for that may be useful as well. > On that machine, I'm instead trying /usr/bin/CC which is SunStudio 12. If that supports C++98 at least as well as GCC 3.4 does, then it ought to work - and having people testing such things will be very useful for verifying that we aren't introducing accidental G++ dependencies when making C++ builds a requirement. You may be the first person testing non-G++ C++ builds.