* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
@ 2011-05-18 21:22 Dennis Clarke
2011-05-19 8:43 ` Dr. David Kirkby
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dennis Clarke @ 2011-05-18 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
>
>>I have had good results for both Sparc and i386/AMD64 with or without
> gas
>>( GNU as ) however you must always use Sun provided LD=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
> if
>>you want things to work.
>
> Yes but I have forgot to say that I have tried with the Solaris ld and
> the result
> was in essence the same. Also,
>
> $ elfdump -s /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.14|grep gnu_cxx
>
> shows that the sumbols are included in the library!
>
> BTW, have you compiled the latest Qt with gcc? You know solaris
> studio is not an option as most useful programs do not compile
> with it.
Yeah I have hit that issue myself over and over to a point where I gave up
on Sun Studio. Such is life.
As for QT , well I have not tried in a while.
Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
--
Dennis Clarke
dclarke@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris
dclarke@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-18 21:22 __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris Dennis Clarke
@ 2011-05-19 8:43 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-19 13:43 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-20 6:20 ` Miles Bader
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Kirkby @ 2011-05-19 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
On 05/18/11 10:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>>> I have had good results for both Sparc and i386/AMD64 with or without
>> gas
>>> ( GNU as ) however you must always use Sun provided LD=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
>> if
>>> you want things to work.
>>
>> Yes but I have forgot to say that I have tried with the Solaris ld and
>> the result
>> was in essence the same. Also,
>>
>> $ elfdump -s /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.14|grep gnu_cxx
>>
>> shows that the sumbols are included in the library!
>>
>> BTW, have you compiled the latest Qt with gcc? You know solaris
>> studio is not an option as most useful programs do not compile
>> with it.
>
> Yeah I have hit that issue myself over and over to a point where I gave up
> on Sun Studio. Such is life.
>
> As for QT , well I have not tried in a while.
>
> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing standard C++
code.
GCC is useful, but it is the cause of a lot of badly written code.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-19 8:43 ` Dr. David Kirkby
@ 2011-05-19 13:43 ` Jonathan Wakely
[not found] ` <8CDE428B4BB3E2C-1354-53EC9@webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com>
2011-05-19 20:09 ` David Kirkby
2011-05-20 6:20 ` Miles Bader
1 sibling, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-19 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr. David Kirkby; +Cc: gcc-help
On 19/05/2011, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> On 05/18/11 10:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
>
> That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing standard
> C++
> code.
(While we're making gross generalisations...) Every compiler with a
significant user base creates ghettos of non-portable code.
I'm curious what you consider to be "GNU C++" because there are fewer
and fewer non-standard constructs accepted, and the trend is generally
to remove support for them not encourage them.
> GCC is useful, but it is the cause of a lot of badly written code.
That can be said about nearly any compiler that's used to write a lot
of code, and I'm sure you know what they say about bad workmen and
their tools.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread[parent not found: <8CDE428B4BB3E2C-1354-53EC9@webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com>]
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-19 13:43 ` Jonathan Wakely
[not found] ` <8CDE428B4BB3E2C-1354-53EC9@webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com>
@ 2011-05-19 20:09 ` David Kirkby
2011-05-20 1:57 ` Jonathan Wakely
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: David Kirkby @ 2011-05-19 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: gcc-help
On 19 May 2011 09:43, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2011, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> On 05/18/11 10:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
>>
>> That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing standard
>> C++
>> code.
>
> (While we're making gross generalisations...) Every compiler with a
> significant user base creates ghettos of non-portable code.
But the default behavior of GCC is to permit loads of GNU extensions.
Therefor lots of people who write code are writing in some variant of
the C language - usually without realising it.
I've spent a lot of time working on the Sage maths project, which
contains over 90 bits of open-source software. I've noticed that those
bits of code which will not compile with the Sun compiler tend to
present more problems when built with gcc than code that will compile
cleanly with the Sun compiler.
There's one bit of code in particular
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/bad-code/sympow-1.018.1.p7/src/
~(do a wget -r if you want it)
which is of appalling quality, yet gcc will compile it. When I tried
finding a problem in that code, it was difficult as the code was not
valid C, so I had no idea what the author actually intended.
12 years after the C99 standard was introduced gcc still does not
fully support it. But numerous extensions have been developed in that
time.
> I'm curious what you consider to be "GNU C++" because there are fewer
> and fewer non-standard constructs accepted, and the trend is generally
> to remove support for them not encourage them.
I can't see how you can say that. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options
-sts=`gnu89'
GNU dialect of ISO C90 (including some C99 features). This is the
default for C code.
It's bad this is the default, but when (IF?) C99 ever gets fully
supported we find the default will again be to permit GNU extensions.
gnu9x'
GNU dialect of ISO C99. When ISO C99 is fully implemented in GCC,
this will become the default. The name `gnu9x' is deprecated.
>> GCC is useful, but it is the cause of a lot of badly written code.
>
> That can be said about nearly any compiler that's used to write a lot
> of code, and I'm sure you know what they say about bad workmen and
> their tools.
True, but the tools could be a bit more protective. If you are a pilot
and you want to crash a plane you can do. But the computer systems
will protect against stalls and other avoidable conditions.
There's no such warnings when you do non-standard things with gcc.
Sure there are obscure options which aim to accept only standard
conforming C, but I argue these should not be options but be defaults.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-19 20:09 ` David Kirkby
@ 2011-05-20 1:57 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-20 4:37 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-20 6:50 ` Dr. David Kirkby
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-20 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Kirkby; +Cc: gcc-help
On 19 May 2011 20:03, David Kirkby <david.kirkby@onetel.net> wrote:
> On 19 May 2011 09:43, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/05/2011, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>> On 05/18/11 10:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
>>>
>>> That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing standard
>>> C++
>>> code.
>>
>> (While we're making gross generalisations...) Every compiler with a
>> significant user base creates ghettos of non-portable code.
>
>
> But the default behavior of GCC is to permit loads of GNU extensions.
> Therefor lots of people who write code are writing in some variant of
> the C language - usually without realising it.
I thought we were talking about C++ (my first clue was the subject of
the thread and your mention of "GNU C++")
Throughout your reply you only refer to C, which I'm not qualified or
interested enough to comment on.
I'm very interested in making G++ conform to the C++ standard as well
as possible and only objected to the assertion that G++ users don't
care about writing standard C++.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 1:57 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-20 4:37 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-20 6:50 ` Dr. David Kirkby
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-05-20 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: David Kirkby, gcc-help
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
> I thought we were talking about C++ (my first clue was the subject of
> the thread and your mention of "GNU C++")
>
> Throughout your reply you only refer to C, which I'm not qualified or
> interested enough to comment on.
>
> I'm very interested in making G++ conform to the C++ standard as well
> as possible and only objected to the assertion that G++ users don't
> care about writing standard C++.
I concur with Jonathan's implication that gcc is far more standard
conforming for C++ than it is for C. The gcc maintainers have shifted
their general attitude about language extensions over time, but it's
hard to remove the existing C extensions as they are widely used. There
were never very many C++ extensions, and I believe the ones which remain
are useful and are clearly demarked by double underscores.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 1:57 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-20 4:37 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2011-05-20 6:50 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-20 6:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Kirkby @ 2011-05-20 6:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
On 05/19/11 09:09 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 19 May 2011 20:03, David Kirkby<david.kirkby@onetel.net> wrote:
> I thought we were talking about C++ (my first clue was the subject of
> the thread and your mention of "GNU C++")
> Throughout your reply you only refer to C, which I'm not qualified or
> interested enough to comment on.
But for many practical purposes C++ is a superset of C, so g++ inherits the same
GNUims as gcc.
For example:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int a=0b1111111;
cout << a;
}
compiles with g++, but is not valid C++.
There's not even a warning if -Wall is used
drkirkby@hawk:~$ g++ -Wall test.cc
drkirkby@hawk:~$
The Sun compiler quickly identifies this as invalid C++ code.
drkirkby@hawk:~$ CC test.cc
"test.cc", line 5: Error: 0b is not a valid constant.
"test.cc", line 5: Error: Badly formed expression.
2 Error(s) detected.
> I'm very interested in making G++ conform to the C++ standard as well
> as possible and only objected to the assertion that G++ users don't
> care about writing standard C++.
My point is the GNU compilers allow constructs which are not standard. Anyone
starting a C++ project and wishing for it to be standard C++, should not use g++.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 6:50 ` Dr. David Kirkby
@ 2011-05-20 6:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-20 14:29 ` Miles Bader
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-20 6:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr. David Kirkby; +Cc: gcc-help
On 20 May 2011 07:20, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> On 05/19/11 09:09 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 19 May 2011 20:03, David Kirkby<david.kirkby@onetel.net> wrote:
>
>> I thought we were talking about C++ (my first clue was the subject of
>> the thread and your mention of "GNU C++")
>
>> Throughout your reply you only refer to C, which I'm not qualified or
>> interested enough to comment on.
>
> But for many practical purposes C++ is a superset of C, so g++ inherits the
> same GNUims as gcc.
Some, but not all of them. G++ is not a superset of the C compiler in
GCC, they're separate front ends.
On the other hand, many C++ extensions have been removed over the years.
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.0/gcc/Deprecated-Features.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.0/gcc/Backwards-Compatibility.html
which support my point about removing non-standard extensions.
As for the other C++ extensions, three of them are now part of the
upcoming C++ standard:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Extensions.html
That's why I say the trend is to remove non-standard extensions in the
C++ front end, can you see how I can say that now?
> For example:
>
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main() {
> int a=0b1111111;
> cout << a;
> }
>
> compiles with g++, but is not valid C++.
>
> There's not even a warning if -Wall is used
Well of course not, RTFM.
If you use -pedantic you get a warning.
> drkirkby@hawk:~$ g++ -Wall test.cc
> drkirkby@hawk:~$
>
> The Sun compiler quickly identifies this as invalid C++ code.
>
> drkirkby@hawk:~$ CC test.cc
> "test.cc", line 5: Error: 0b is not a valid constant.
> "test.cc", line 5: Error: Badly formed expression.
> 2 Error(s) detected.
>
>> I'm very interested in making G++ conform to the C++ standard as well
>> as possible and only objected to the assertion that G++ users don't
>> care about writing standard C++.
>
> My point is the GNU compilers allow constructs which are not standard.
So do all compilers so your point is pretty pointless.
e.g. the Sun compiler allows
struct X {
mutable int& i;
};
but that's ill-formed (gcc accepted it until 4.6 too, but I fixed it.)
G++ is far stricter and more standard conforming than the Sun
compiler. Additionally it accepts some extensions, but most of them
can be disabled with -pedantic-errors if you don't want them.
> Anyone starting a C++ project and wishing for it to be standard C++, should
> not use g++.
Now you sound like a troll. I'd ignore you, but I don't want to leave
a ridiculous statement like that unchallenged in the archives of this
list.
I've been starting C++ projects for years using G++ and it's not done
me or my code any harm.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 6:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-20 14:29 ` Miles Bader
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2011-05-20 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Dr. David Kirkby, gcc-help
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
> On 20 May 2011 07:20, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> Anyone starting a C++ project and wishing for it to be standard C++,
>> should not use g++.
>
> Now you sound like a troll.
Indeed.
-miles
--
Cannon, n. An instrument employed in the rectification of national boundaries.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-19 8:43 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-19 13:43 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-20 6:20 ` Miles Bader
2011-05-20 7:00 ` Dr. David Kirkby
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2011-05-20 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr. David Kirkby; +Cc: gcc-help
"Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kirkby@onetel.net> writes:
>> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
>
> That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing
> standard C++ code.
... or are capable of adding a "-std=..." option. Even if there were no
GNU extensions at all, one would usually need to think about this, as
the differences between various standard dialects are significant.
[Even by default, though, g++ is of vastly _vastly_ more
standards-conforming than, e.g., Microsoft's C++ compiler...]
-Miles
--
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it." Mahatma Gandhi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 6:20 ` Miles Bader
@ 2011-05-20 7:00 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-20 12:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Kirkby @ 2011-05-20 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
On 05/20/11 06:23 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby"<david.kirkby@onetel.net> writes:
>>> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
>>
>> That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing
>> standard C++ code.
>
> ... or are capable of adding a "-std=..." option.
BUT IMHO, the default should be to use the standard C++, not a set of extensions
GCC permits.
In any case, that does not work well.
drkirkby@hawk:~$ cat test.cc
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int a=0b1111111;
cout << a;
}
drkirkby@hawk:~$ g++ -std=c++98 -Wall test.cc
drkirkby@hawk:~$ ./a.out
127drkirkby@hawk:~$
I don't have an official copy of the latest standard, but I don't believe 0b is
anything other than a GNU extension.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Binary-constants.html
> Even if there were no
> GNU extensions at all, one would usually need to think about this, as
> the differences between various standard dialects are significant.
>
> [Even by default, though, g++ is of vastly _vastly_ more
> standards-conforming than, e.g., Microsoft's C++ compiler...]
>
> -Miles
I use gcc a lot, but I'm not impressed with it.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 7:00 ` Dr. David Kirkby
@ 2011-05-20 12:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 13:22 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-20 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr. David Kirkby; +Cc: gcc-help
On 20 May 2011 07:49, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> On 05/20/11 06:23 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>> "Dr. David Kirkby"<david.kirkby@onetel.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Stick with GCC and you will be happy.
>>>
>>> That's if you want to write in GNU C++ and don't care about writing
>>> standard C++ code.
>>
>> ... or are capable of adding a "-std=..." option.
>
> BUT IMHO, the default should be to use the standard C++, not a set of
> extensions GCC permits.
Have you seen the default C++ standard library used by the Sun compiler?
Or its treatment of the lifetime of temporaries? (See -features=tmplife)
And it allows __thread by default, but it's a non-standard extension -
the horror!
> In any case, that does not work well.
>
> drkirkby@hawk:~$ cat test.cc
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main() {
> int a=0b1111111;
> cout << a;
> }
>
> drkirkby@hawk:~$ g++ -std=c++98 -Wall test.cc
> drkirkby@hawk:~$ ./a.out
> 127drkirkby@hawk:~$
>
> I don't have an official copy of the latest standard, but I don't believe 0b
> is anything other than a GNU extension.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Binary-constants.html
Yes, it's an extension, so use -pedantic as documented in the manual.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-20 12:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-25 13:22 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 13:28 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-25 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>> I don't have an official copy of the latest standard, but I don't
believe 0b
>> is anything other than a GNU extension.
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Binary-constants.html
>
>Yes, it's an extension, so use -pedantic as documented in the manual.
And why not have this option as the default to so to discourage or even
prevent people from
using the extensions?
Apostolos
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 13:22 ` asyropoulos
@ 2011-05-25 13:28 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 14:55 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-25 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
On 25 May 2011 09:30, <asyropoulos@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't have an official copy of the latest standard, but I don't
>
> believe 0b
>>>
>>> is anything other than a GNU extension.
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Binary-constants.html
>>
>> Yes, it's an extension, so use -pedantic as documented in the manual.
>
> And why not have this option as the default to so to discourage or even
> prevent people from
> using the extensions?
Because not everyone who uses the compiler wants the same settings, so
changing defaults can't be done lightly.
It's there if you want to use it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 13:28 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-25 14:55 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 16:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 17:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-25 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>> And why not have this option as the default to so to discourage or
even
>> prevent people from
>> using the extensions?
>
>Because not everyone who uses the compiler wants the same settings, so
>changing defaults can't be done lightly.
This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the
GNU C,
GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
>It's there if you want to use it.
No the standard must the default and the GNUisms the extension not the
other way around. After all, this is exactly what certain big companies
are doing
and people are blaming them for disrespecting standards...
A.S.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 14:55 ` asyropoulos
@ 2011-05-25 16:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 17:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-25 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
On 25 May 2011 14:27, <asyropoulos@aol.com> wrote:
>>> And why not have this option as the default to so to discourage or
>
> even
>>>
>>> prevent people from
>>> using the extensions?
>>
>> Because not everyone who uses the compiler wants the same settings, so
>> changing defaults can't be done lightly.
>
> This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the GNU C,
> GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
Is it? Where does it say that?
The default mode for compiling C is -std=gnu89 and for C++ it's
-std=gnu++98, I'm pretty sure that those defaults weren't set that way
by accident.
>> It's there if you want to use it.
>
> No the standard must the default and the GNUisms the extension not the
> other way around. After all, this is exactly what certain big companies are
> doing
> and people are blaming them for disrespecting standards...
Feel free to file a bug - complaining on this list won't change anything.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 14:55 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 16:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-25 17:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-25 17:51 ` asyropoulos
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-05-25 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
asyropoulos@aol.com writes:
> This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the
> GNU C,
> GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
I'm not sure why you say that.
> No the standard must the default and the GNUisms the extension not the
> other way around. After all, this is exactly what certain big
> companies are doing
> and people are blaming them for disrespecting standards...
The compiler is a sharp knife. You can make it do what you want.
The default behaviour is not going to change.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 17:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2011-05-25 17:51 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 18:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 18:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-25 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>> This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the
>> GNU C,
>> GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
>
>I'm not sure why you say that.
From http://gcc.gnu.org/:
#The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++,
Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as
#libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...). GCC was
originally written as the compiler for the GNU operating system.
#The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the
sense that it respects the user's freedom.
Here it is clearly stated that this is a C, C++, etc. compiler not
something else. And when you press the C link it
shows to what degree the compiler supports the standard. So what don't
you understand?
>The compiler is a sharp knife. You can make it do what you want.
No it is a tool that is supposed to work compilers work.
>The default behaviour is not going to change.
Too bad for GNU and gcc. And I had the impression that this is all
about standards
that everyone should follow...
Regards,
A.S.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 17:51 ` asyropoulos
@ 2011-05-25 18:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 18:46 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 18:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-25 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
On 25 May 2011 17:21, <asyropoulos@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the
>>> GNU C,
>>> GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you say that.
>
> From http://gcc.gnu.org/:
>
> #The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C,
> Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as
> #libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).
Did you miss this bit:
**********
> GCC was originally
> written as the compiler for the GNU operating system.
**********
> #The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the sense
> that it respects the user's freedom.
>
> Here it is clearly stated that this is a C, C++, etc. compiler not something
It doesn't say "ISO C".
> else. And when you press the C link it
> shows to what degree the compiler supports the standard.
That link was only very recently added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-05/msg00102.html
That page was chosen because there isn't a better page for the C
front-end, it's not really a good choice. It documents the conformance
to C99, and the default for GCC is -std=gnu90, not even -std=gnu99 let
alone -std=c99
> So what don't you
> understand?
You're arguing with two maintainers of GCC about what GCC is.
I can't see any result except making yourself look silly.
>> The compiler is a sharp knife. You can make it do what you want.
>
> No it is a tool that is supposed to work compilers work.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.
It's a tool, yes. A very flexible one, so there have to be some
defaults chosen for its behaviour. No set of defaults will please
everyone, so on that basis keeping the same defaults as we have now
causes the least disruption.
>> The default behaviour is not going to change.
>
> Too bad for GNU and gcc. And I had the impression that this is all about
> standards
> that everyone should follow...
Your impression was wrong, it's not "all about" any single thing,
because what defines a useful compiler means different things to
different people.
I care very much about making G++ conform closely to the C++ standard
so I can use it to write conforming code whenever possible, but I
disagree that all extensions should be disabled by default. If you
want GCC to follow the standards you can use the appropriate switches.
Even if your preference is "right", changing the defaults would force
your opinion on everyone else and cause a lot of wasted time and
anger.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 18:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-25 18:46 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-26 11:23 ` Paul Smith
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-25 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jwakely.gcc; +Cc: gcc-help
>Did you miss this bit:
>
>**********
>> GCC was originally
>> written as the compiler for the GNU operating system.
>**********
Which means what? That the compiler should not obey a standard?
>> #The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the
sense
>> that it respects the user's freedom.
>>
>> Here it is clearly stated that this is a C, C++, etc. compiler not
something
>
>It doesn't say "ISO C".
Yes it does:
This table is based on the list in the foreword to N1256 (ISO/IEC
9899:1999 (E), consolidated with ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001 (E),
ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.2:2004 (E) and ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.3:2007 (E)).
>front-end, it's not really a good choice. It documents the conformance
>to C99, and the default for GCC is -std=gnu90, not even -std=gnu99 let
>alone -std=c99
So it is not a C compiler!
>
>You're arguing with two maintainers of GCC about what GCC is.
>
>I can't see any result except making yourself look silly.
That is, everyone who argues with GCC developers is silly? Very nice!
>It's a tool, yes. A very flexible one, so there have to be some
>defaults chosen for its behaviour. No set of defaults will please
>everyone, so on that basis keeping the same defaults as we have now
>causes the least disruption.
When you buy screwdrivers, tools in general,. they all conform to
standards
or else you wouldn't be able to use them. It is that simple. A compiler
must conform to standards. It must accept only strings (programs) that
follow the standard.
>Your impression was wrong, it's not "all about" any single thing,
>because what defines a useful compiler means different things to
>different people.
The problem is flexibility. Either you obey the standard and you have
a conforming compiler or else you have a program that is something
else. POSIX is similar example: either you follow it or don't care about
it. But if we start not to care about standards, we are in big trouble.
>I care very much about making G++ conform closely to the C++ standard
>so I can use it to write conforming code whenever possible, but I
>disagree that all extensions should be disabled by default. If you
And I strongly disagree with this last statement! This is the root of
all
evil. This is why people create programs that do not compile in
different architectures/systems.
>want GCC to follow the standards you can use the appropriate switches.
And how can I force developers to write conforming code when the
compiler itself welcomes violation of all standards?
A.S.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 18:46 ` asyropoulos
@ 2011-05-26 11:23 ` Paul Smith
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Paul Smith @ 2011-05-26 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: jwakely.gcc, gcc-help
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 14:22 -0400, asyropoulos@aol.com wrote:
> When you buy screwdrivers, tools in general,. they all conform to
> standards or else you wouldn't be able to use them. It is that simple.
> A compiler must conform to standards. It must accept only strings
> (programs) that follow the standard.
Ian already mentioned this but I'll reiterate it because I see this all
the time in my work as well: it appears to be a common misunderstanding
of what standards are for and what it means to be a conforming
implementation of a given standard.
If your compiler accepts input that is correct according to the standard
and it correctly generates the proper output as defined by the standard,
then it's a conforming implementation of that standard.
GCC is at least as conforming as any other compiler, that I'm aware of,
to the various standards. All compilers have small areas where they're
not conforming and GCC does too, but these are being reduced all the
time.
What you are asking for here is something completely different: that the
compiler REJECT any input that does NOT conform exactly to the standard.
That behavior is NOT required in a conforming implementation of the
standard. The standard does not, and cannot, describe what the compiler
should do when the input invokes undefined behavior... it can emit an
error, or crash, or even actually interpret that behavior and provide
useful results. If the input is not strictly conforming then nothing
the compiler does can be said to violate the standard, by definition.
So. You do not have a valid argument based on adherence to the
standard: GCC's behavior is absolutely, completely valid in terms of
what the standard requires and IS a (mostly) conforming
implementation--at any rate, changing the default behavior as you
suggest will not make GCC any MORE conforming than it is today.
You have a good argument to be made here based solely on quality of
implementation grounds: that it would be better, from a QOI point of
view, if the compiler were to by default complain about non-conforming
behavior and require flags to be specified to loosen the interpretation.
I can't disagree with you that _in the abstract_ that would be the
correct behavior.
But here's the thing: GCC was written (originally) before ISO published
the first C standard. It _predates_ the standard. At the time the
standard was published in 1989/1990 it was already outdated in various
ways. Also, because the standard was just published, hardly any C code
actually complied with the standard. If GCC had adopted a strict
adherence model almost no code would have passed that check. So GCC
kept its "lax" interpretation as the default but allowed you to ask for
strict interpretations. Maybe in hindsight a different choice would
have been better... or maybe not.
In any event, what Ian is saying is that the choice was made back then
and it's far too late now to change it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-25 17:51 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 18:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-25 18:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-05-25 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
asyropoulos@aol.com writes:
>>> This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the
>>> GNU C,
>>> GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
>>
>>I'm not sure why you say that.
>
> From http://gcc.gnu.org/:
>
> #The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++,
> Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as
> #libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...). GCC was
> originally written as the compiler for the GNU operating system.
> #The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the
> sense that it respects the user's freedom.
>
> Here it is clearly stated that this is a C, C++, etc. compiler not
> something else. And when you press the C link it
> shows to what degree the compiler supports the standard. So what
> don't you understand?
gcc does by default compile all conforming ISO C90 programs and, with
the appropriate option, almost all conforming C99 programs. I am not
aware of any compiler which by default rejects all non-conforming C90 or
C99 programs, though most compilers, including gcc, do have a mode in
which they reject non-conforming programs.
> Too bad for GNU and gcc. And I had the impression that this is all
> about standards
> that everyone should follow...
gcc does follow the standards. You are talking about something else:
rejecting non-conforming programs. The standard discusses conforming
programs, not non-conforming programs.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
@ 2011-05-19 17:09 Dennis Clarke
2011-05-19 19:03 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dennis Clarke @ 2011-05-19 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
>>See the docs for --enable-symvers at
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/configure.html
>>
>>If that isn't given explicitly then it will be guessed by configure.
>>The guess will depend on whether the linker supports symvers or not so
>>depends on what linker gcc is configured to use. Also support for
>>--enable-symvers=sun was added in gcc 4.6, so maybe that is being used
>>by your 4.6 build.
>
>
> Thank you for the info. I have tried to compiled Qt with gcc
>
> $ gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=gcc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gnu/gcc-4.6.0/libexec/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.
> 6.0/lto-wrapper
> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
> Configured with: ../gcc-4.6.0/configure --prefix=/opt/gnu/gcc-4.6.0
> --enable-shared --disable-libtool-lock
> --target= --enable-objc-gc --disable-libada --enable-libssp
> --enable-languages=c,c++
> --enable-threads=posix --enable-tls=yes --with-system-zlib
> --with-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/gnu/bin/ld
> --with-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gmp-lib=/usr/lib
> --with-mpfr-lib=/usr/lib
> --enable-c99 --enable-nls --enable-wchar_t
> --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt --with-pic --enable-multilib
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.6.0 (GCC)
>
>
> and this time compilation completed with no problems. So it seems that
> GNU ld does something
> magical...
Doe that not frighten you a bit ? I would think that one should never
astonish the user with such things.
Dennis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-19 17:09 Dennis Clarke
@ 2011-05-19 19:03 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-19 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>> and this time compilation completed with no problems. So it seems
that
>> GNU ld does something
>> magical...
>
>Doe that not frighten you a bit ? I would think that one should never
>astonish the user with such things.
Hello Dennis,
I am not really sure I understand your point. It is not the first time
something is not working the way it "should".
Apostolos
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
@ 2011-05-18 20:32 Dennis Clarke
2011-05-18 21:20 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dennis Clarke @ 2011-05-18 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to build the latest Qt (v. 4.7.3) with gcc but it fails and
> stops with the following error message:
>
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_initialize()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `std::_List_node_base::_M_unhook()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_get_thread_id()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to
> `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reclaim_block(char*, unsigned int)'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to
> `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reserve_block(unsigned int, unsigned int)'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to
> `std::_List_node_base::_M_hook(std::_List_node_base*)'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make: *** [../../../../bin/assistant] Error 1
>
> I am using OpenSolaris and both gcc 4.5.4 and 4.6.0 stop with the same
> error. In the "Platform and Compiler Notes"
>
> http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/platform-notes-x11.html
>
> it is advised that on Solaris one should use GNU ld/as and not the
> Solaris ld/as. Now, gcc has been configured
> as follows:
>
> $ /opt/gcc-4.6.0/bin/gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-4.6.0/bin/gcc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc-4.6.0/libexec/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.6.0/
> lto-wrapper
> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
> Configured with: ../gcc-4.6.0/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-4.6.0
> --enable-shared --enable-static
> --disable-libtool-lock --target= --enable-objc-gc --disable-libada
> --enable-libssp
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,go,objc,obj-c++ --enable-threads=posix
> --enable-tls=yes --with-system-zlib --without-gnu-ld
> --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
> --with-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gmp-lib=/usr/lib
> --with-mpfr-lib=/usr/lib
> --enable-c99 --enable-nls --enable-wchar_t
> --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt --with-pic --enable-multilib
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.6.0 (GCC)
>
>
> and
> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2010-10-02 15:41 /usr/ccs/bin/ld ->
> ../../bin/ld
> $ /usr/bin/ld --version
> GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.19
> Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms
> of
> the GNU General Public License version 3 or (at your option) a later
> version.
> This program has absolutely no warranty.
>
> So I am using gld when compiling. I would appreciate and
> comment/suggestion/idea
> that would help me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Apostolos
see http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/buildstat.html
for i386-pc-solaris2.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-04/msg00175.html
and for sparc-sun-solaris2.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02959.html
I have had good results for both Sparc and i386/AMD64 with or without gas
( GNU as ) however you must always use Sun provided LD=/usr/ccs/bin/ld if
you want things to work.
--
Dennis Clarke
dclarke@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris
dclarke@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-18 20:32 Dennis Clarke
@ 2011-05-18 21:20 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-18 21:24 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-18 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>I have had good results for both Sparc and i386/AMD64 with or without
gas
>( GNU as ) however you must always use Sun provided LD=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
if
>you want things to work.
Yes but I have forgot to say that I have tried with the Solaris ld and
the result
was in essence the same. Also,
$ elfdump -s /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.14|grep gnu_cxx
shows that the sumbols are included in the library!
BTW, have you compiled the latest Qt with gcc? You know solaris
studio is not an option as most useful programs do not compile
with it.
Apostolos
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-18 21:20 ` asyropoulos
@ 2011-05-18 21:24 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-18 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
On 18 May 2011 21:59, <asyropoulos@aol.com> wrote:
>
> $ elfdump -s /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.14|grep gnu_cxx
>
> shows that the sumbols are included in the library!
You said your compiler was configured with
--prefix=/opt/gcc-4.6.0
but that's in /usr/lib
what about the libstdc++ in /opt/gcc-4.6.0 ?
Check whether it uses symbol versioning, i.e. symbol names with e.g.
@_GLIBCXX3.14
If your compiler is configured to use symvers but it finds a shared
library built without them, it will cause problems.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
@ 2011-05-18 19:58 asyropoulos
2011-05-18 20:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-19 0:12 ` Marc Glisse
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-18 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
Hello,
I am trying to build the latest Qt (v. 4.7.3) with gcc but it fails and
stops with the following error message:
/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_initialize()'
/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
4: undefined reference to `std::_List_node_base::_M_unhook()'
/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_get_thread_id()'
/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
4: undefined reference to
`__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reclaim_block(char*, unsigned int)'
/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
4: undefined reference to
`__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reserve_block(unsigned int, unsigned int)'
/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
4: undefined reference to
`std::_List_node_base::_M_hook(std::_List_node_base*)'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [../../../../bin/assistant] Error 1
I am using OpenSolaris and both gcc 4.5.4 and 4.6.0 stop with the same
error. In the "Platform and Compiler Notes"
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/platform-notes-x11.html
it is advised that on Solaris one should use GNU ld/as and not the
Solaris ld/as. Now, gcc has been configured
as follows:
$ /opt/gcc-4.6.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-4.6.0/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc-4.6.0/libexec/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.6.0/
lto-wrapper
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Configured with: ../gcc-4.6.0/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-4.6.0
--enable-shared --enable-static
--disable-libtool-lock --target= --enable-objc-gc --disable-libada
--enable-libssp
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,go,objc,obj-c++ --enable-threads=posix
--enable-tls=yes --with-system-zlib --without-gnu-ld
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
--with-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gmp-lib=/usr/lib
--with-mpfr-lib=/usr/lib
--enable-c99 --enable-nls --enable-wchar_t
--enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt --with-pic --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 (GCC)
and
$ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2010-10-02 15:41 /usr/ccs/bin/ld ->
../../bin/ld
$ /usr/bin/ld --version
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.19
Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms
of
the GNU General Public License version 3 or (at your option) a later
version.
This program has absolutely no warranty.
So I am using gld when compiling. I would appreciate and
comment/suggestion/idea
that would help me.
Regards,
Apostolos
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-18 19:58 asyropoulos
@ 2011-05-18 20:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-18 20:59 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-19 0:12 ` Marc Glisse
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-05-18 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
On 18 May 2011 19:17, <asyropoulos@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to build the latest Qt (v. 4.7.3) with gcc but it fails and
> stops with the following error message:
>
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_initialize()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `std::_List_node_base::_M_unhook()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_get_thread_id()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reclaim_block(char*,
> unsigned int)'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to
> `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reserve_block(unsigned int, unsigned int)'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to
> `std::_List_node_base::_M_hook(std::_List_node_base*)'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make: *** [../../../../bin/assistant] Error 1
Since you are getting a number of missing symbols from the C++ runtime
library my first guess would be that libstdc++ is not being linked to.
What is the linker command? is it using 'gcc' to link? Using 'g++'
instead would cause -lstdc++ to be used automatically.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-18 20:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-18 20:59 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-18 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>Since you are getting a number of missing symbols from the C++ runtime
>library my first guess would be that libstdc++ is not being linked to.
> What is the linker command? is it using 'gcc' to link? Using 'g++'
>instead would cause -lstdc++ to be used automatically.
Here is the command
g++
-Wl,-rpath-link,/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib
-Wl,-R,/opt/gnu/qt4/lib -Wl,-R,/opt/gnu/qt4/lib -o
../../../../bin/assistant .obj/release-shared/fontpanel.o
.obj/release-shared/aboutdialog.o .obj/release-shared/bookmarkdialog.o
.obj/release-shared/bookmarkfiltermodel.o
.obj/release-shared/bookmarkitem.o
.obj/release-shared/bookmarkmanager.o
.obj/release-shared/bookmarkmanagerwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/bookmarkmodel.o
.obj/release-shared/centralwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/cmdlineparser.o
.obj/release-shared/contentwindow.o .obj/release-shared/findwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/filternamedialog.o
.obj/release-shared/helpenginewrapper.o
.obj/release-shared/helpviewer.o .obj/release-shared/indexwindow.o
.obj/release-shared/installdialog.o .obj/release-shared/main.o
.obj/release-shared/mainwindow.o
.obj/release-shared/preferencesdialog.o
.obj/release-shared/qtdocinstaller.o
.obj/release-shared/remotecontrol.o .obj/release-shared/searchwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/topicchooser.o .obj/release-shared/xbelsupport.o
.obj/release-shared/collectionconfiguration.o
.obj/release-shared/helpviewer_qtb.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_fontpanel.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_aboutdialog.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_bookmarkdialog.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_bookmarkfiltermodel.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_bookmarkmanager.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_bookmarkmanagerwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_bookmarkmodel.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_centralwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_contentwindow.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_findwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_filternamedialog.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_helpenginewrapper.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_indexwindow.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_installdialog.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_mainwindow.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_preferencesdialog.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_qtdocinstaller.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_remotecontrol.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_searchwidget.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_topicchooser.o
.obj/release-shared/moc_helpviewer_qtb.o
.obj/release-shared/qrc_assistant.o
.obj/release-shared/qrc_assistant_images.o -L/opt/gnu/include
-L/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib
-L/usr/sfw/lib
-L/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/plugins/sqldrivers
-lQtHelp -L/opt/gnu/include
-L/extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib
-L/usr/sfw/lib -L/usr/X11/lib -lQtSql -lQtXml -lQtGui -lQtNetwork
-lresolv -lsocket -lxnet -lnsl -lQtCore -lpthread -lrt
*** Error code 1
As you see it uses g++.
A.S.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-18 19:58 asyropoulos
2011-05-18 20:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-05-19 0:12 ` Marc Glisse
2011-05-19 14:04 ` asyropoulos
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Marc Glisse @ 2011-05-19 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: asyropoulos; +Cc: gcc-help
On Wed, 18 May 2011, asyropoulos@aol.com wrote:
> I am trying to build the latest Qt (v. 4.7.3) with gcc but it fails and stops
> with the following error message:
>
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_initialize()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `std::_List_node_base::_M_unhook()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_get_thread_id()'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reclaim_block(char*,
> unsigned int)'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to `__gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reserve_block(unsigned
> int, unsigned int)'
> /extra/sources/qt/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.7.3/lib/libQtCLucene.so.
> 4: undefined reference to
> `std::_List_node_base::_M_hook(std::_List_node_base*)'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make: *** [../../../../bin/assistant] Error 1
Try locating all files named libstdc++.*, there may be an older one being
picked up first.
> http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/platform-notes-x11.html
>
> it is advised that on Solaris one should use GNU ld/as and not the Solaris
> ld/as.
Whereas gcc recommends using Sun ld ;-)
> $ /opt/gcc-4.6.0/bin/gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-4.6.0/bin/gcc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc-4.6.0/libexec/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.6.0/
> lto-wrapper
> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
> Configured with: ../gcc-4.6.0/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-4.6.0
> --enable-shared --enable-static
> --disable-libtool-lock --target= --enable-objc-gc --disable-libada
> --enable-libssp
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,go,objc,obj-c++ --enable-threads=posix
> --enable-tls=yes --with-system-zlib --without-gnu-ld
> --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
> --with-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gmp-lib=/usr/lib
> --with-mpfr-lib=/usr/lib
> --enable-c99 --enable-nls --enable-wchar_t --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt
> --with-pic --enable-multilib
Wow, that's a long line...
> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2010-10-02 15:41 /usr/ccs/bin/ld -> ../../bin/ld
> $ /usr/bin/ld --version
> GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.19
On Solaris, really? Did you overwrite the system one?
(--without-gnu-ld doesn't fit that well with using gnu ld)
--
Marc Glisse
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris
2011-05-19 0:12 ` Marc Glisse
@ 2011-05-19 14:04 ` asyropoulos
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: asyropoulos @ 2011-05-19 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
>Try locating all files named libstdc++.*, there may be an older one
being
>picked up first.
I don't think this is the problem:
$ cd /usr/lib
$ ls -l libstdc++.so.*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 2010-12-21 20:05 libstdc++.so.6 ->
libstdc++.so.6.0.14
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 1487364 2010-10-02 15:41 libstdc++.so.6.0.10
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 5692376 2010-12-21 20:05 libstdc++.so.6.0.14
-rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 2284 2010-12-21 20:05
libstdc++.so.6.0.14-gdb.py
>Whereas gcc recommends using Sun ld ;-)
I know this, but my goal is to compile Qt.
>> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2010-10-02 15:41 /usr/ccs/bin/ld ->
../../bin/ld
>> $ /usr/bin/ld --version
>> GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.19
>
>On Solaris, really? Did you overwrite the system one?
>
Not really, I made a copy just to make the test:
$ cd /usr/bin/
$ ls -l ld*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 1327156 Μαϊ 18 15:20 ld
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 17912 Μαϊ 18 14:21 ld.sol
>(--without-gnu-ld doesn't fit that well with using gnu ld)
Maybe I need to recompile GCC with gnu ld and see what happens.
A.S.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-25 19:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-18 21:22 __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris Dennis Clarke
2011-05-19 8:43 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-19 13:43 ` Jonathan Wakely
[not found] ` <8CDE428B4BB3E2C-1354-53EC9@webmail-m062.sysops.aol.com>
[not found] ` <BANLkTikMNaDXY51WiHujQ0jxw3eE64fcFg@mail.gmail.com>
2011-05-19 14:51 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-19 14:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-19 16:34 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-19 17:00 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-19 20:09 ` David Kirkby
2011-05-20 1:57 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-20 4:37 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-20 6:50 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-20 6:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-20 14:29 ` Miles Bader
2011-05-20 6:20 ` Miles Bader
2011-05-20 7:00 ` Dr. David Kirkby
2011-05-20 12:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 13:22 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 13:28 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 14:55 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 16:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 17:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-05-25 17:51 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-25 18:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-25 18:46 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-26 11:23 ` Paul Smith
2011-05-25 18:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-05-19 17:09 Dennis Clarke
2011-05-19 19:03 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-18 20:32 Dennis Clarke
2011-05-18 21:20 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-18 21:24 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-18 19:58 asyropoulos
2011-05-18 20:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-05-18 20:59 ` asyropoulos
2011-05-19 0:12 ` Marc Glisse
2011-05-19 14:04 ` asyropoulos
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).