From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9562 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2012 10:06:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9450 invoked by uid 48); 8 Oct 2012 10:06:12 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54847] --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes non-functional on darwin Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:06:00 -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: redi at gcc dot gnu.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/msg00656.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847 --- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08 10:06:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I think Jack is confused regarding --enable-libstdcxx-timer. From emailing me, > he seems to be under the impression that '--enable-libstdcxx-timer' is > equivalent to '--enable-libstdcxx-timer=no' ... if that is the case, then > something is certainly wrong since --enable-libstdcxx-timer should be > equivalent to '--enable-libstdcxx-timer=yes' ... It is equivalent. (N.B. "time" not "timer") > As for darwin ... we have sched_yield and nanosleep. We don't have > clock_gettime. > > Why are you testing for posix timer support in your checks for sched_yield and > nanosleep? See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-05/msg00085.html for previous suggestions for having more fine-grained checks than the current one for --enable-libstdcxx-time (In reply to comment #13) > Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00696.html. Jack, I've asked you before, please send libstdc++ patches to the libstdc++ list. This patch is not acceptable, it doesn't "fix" anything, so consider it rejected. (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Note that the autoconf test is built by the C++ compiler, thus there is no real > > difference between timespec and struct timespec. > > Except that one is POSIX and one is not. Additionally, you shouldn't assume > that g++ is being used. Hopefully, libstdc++ would be portable enough that one > wouldn't need to bootstrap g++ to build it. But you do need a C++ compiler. All patches to that code are rejected unless they get sent to the right list, I'm not even going to review them otherwise, I'll just reject them. Testing changes to those configure checks on a single platform proves nothing about whether the change is correct.