From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31678 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2012 23:26:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 31303 invoked by uid 48); 7 Oct 2012 23:25:56 -0000 From: "jeremyhu at macports dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54847] --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes non-functional on darwin Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:26:00 -0000 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: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jeremyhu at macports dot org 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 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: 2012-10/txt/msg00638.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847 --- Comment #20 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia 2012-10-07 23:25:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > To repeat what I meant: the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler. Given > that, writing 'timespec' or writing 'struct timespec' is exactly the same. C++ lets you just drop "struct"? My C++ is very rusty, and I didn't realize that. That seems messy. Thanks for the info. > Just > wanted to clarify why, even from a formal point of view, the patch cannot be > right, I didn't really mean to analyze in any detail the existing autoconf test > (I didn't write this specific one, IIRC). Again send patches to libstdc++, > possibly CC Jon. Yeah, that's why I'm suggesting just dropping the check for _POSIX_TIMERS > 0 ... that check seems weird to me, and Jack's test seems to indicate that it's not needed.