From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30508 invoked by alias); 29 May 2002 10:06:07 -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 30463 invoked by uid 71); 29 May 2002 10:06:04 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 03:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020529100604.30459.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: bkoz@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Rainer Orth Subject: Re: libstdc++/6553: 26_numerics/complex_inserters_extractors.cc fails in Tru64 UNIX V5.1 Reply-To: Rainer Orth X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00947.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/6553; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Rainer Orth To: bkoz@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: libstdc++/6553: 26_numerics/complex_inserters_extractors.cc fails in Tru64 UNIX V5.1 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:04:01 +0200 (MEST) bkoz@gcc.gnu.org writes: > Hi! Hey, I think the fix to this is pretty simple: > > libstdc++-v3/config/os/osf/osf5.0/bits/cpu_limits.h > > has: > > #define __glibcpp_long_bits 64 > > #define __glibcpp_long_double_bits 128 > > So, to get this working, don't you just have to add an OSF 4.0 config that doesn't have these defines? > > Seems pretty simple, if this is it. I don't think so: these values are only used on Tru64 UNIX V5.x, as can be seen in configure.target: alpha*-*-*osf5*) CPULIMITSH=config/os/osf/osf5.0 V4.0 uses this instead alpha*-*-*) CPULIMITSH=config/cpu/alpha which has the correct #define __glibcpp_long_bits 64 #define __glibcpp_long_double_bits 64 since 128-bit long double support was only introduced (via software emulation) in V5. So, despite __glibcpp_long_double_bits is correct for both V4.0 and V5.1, the testcase fails in V5.1. Rainer