From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18181 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2002 14:36:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18167 invoked by uid 71); 5 Jan 2002 14:36:02 -0000 Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 06:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020105143602.18166.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Mark Swanson Subject: Re: c++/5282: .so exception handler works in 3.0.2 not 3.0.3 Reply-To: Mark Swanson X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/5282; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mark Swanson To: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/5282: .so exception handler works in 3.0.2 not 3.0.3 Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 09:19:19 -0500 On January 4, 2002 11:53 pm, rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org wrote: > Synopsis: .so exception handler works in 3.0.2 not 3.0.3 > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: rodrigc > State-Changed-When: Fri Jan 4 20:53:38 2002 > State-Changed-Why: > You did not provide enough files to compile your testcase: > tuxmodule.h:31:17: tux.h: No such file or directory > > Instead of feeding us files one by one, read the > bug submission instructions at: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html and give us a single preprocessed > source file. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc& >pr=5282 The update I sent (BugLib.cpp) does not require tuxmodule.h at all. My hope was that would be enough to meet the requirements. It's three tiny files instead of one, but they don't require any third party package... Because of the nature of the test case requiring the creation of a shared library, and a test program to load it, that would require two preprocessed files. Would that be preferrable than my three tiny source files? Lemme know. Thanks.