From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5191 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 20:56:02 -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 5170 invoked by uid 71); 16 Dec 2002 20:56:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021216205602.5130.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Felix von Leitner Subject: Re: c++/8889: g++ 3.2.1 (also 3.2 it) miscompile Qt Reply-To: Felix von Leitner X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00863.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8889; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Felix von Leitner To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/8889: g++ 3.2.1 (also 3.2 it) miscompile Qt Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:53:39 +0100 Thus spake bangerth@dealii.org (bangerth@dealii.org): > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: bangerth > State-Changed-When: Mon Dec 16 11:26:23 2002 > State-Changed-Why: > I'm still leaning with Volker's ABI theory. What one > would need to check is what libraries Qt actually pulls > in. For example, on my system these are: > tmp/g> ldd /usr/lib/libqt.so.3 > libpng.so.2 => /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 (0x40618000) > libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0x40649000) > libGL.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 (0x40658000) > libXmu.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x4080f000) > libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x40826000) > libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x4083e000) > libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40848000) > libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x4084c000) > libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x4085a000) > libXrender.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x4091a000) > libXft.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.1 (0x40920000) > libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x4094a000) > libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 => /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 (0x4098a000) > libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x409d7000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x409fa000) > libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x40b22000) > libXi.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x40b70000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000) As you noted yourself, the only relevant library is libstdc++, which in this listing obviously is the wrong one. In my case it's libstdc++.so.5. Please compile Qt yourself with gcc 3.2.1 and see if you can reproduce the problem. That should be the first prudent cause of action, I think. Has anyone ever successfully compiled Qt 3.1 with g++ 3.2.1? I use glibc 2.2.5 because the current glibc 2.3 versions all dump core in the compilation process (I opened a glibc bug for this). I used the default Qt options and I used the cxa atexit switch that is recommended in the gcc web pages for 100% ABI compliance. It should be a trivial exercise to try to reproduce my problem. I'm not using some obscure platform or anything. Just default or recommended flags for the involved major packages. If anyone else was able to successfully compile these packages, that would be enough for me. No need to tell me to look for stuff I already looked at. > On my system, these libraries all contain no C++ symbols, > except libstdc++, of course, but you should repeat this > with the executables/libraries that fail for you. No, I shouldn't. These are no obscure projects from some Joe Schmoe. I used standard packages and default flags. It ought to be a matter of seconds to find someone in the gcc team who compiled these packages with the current gcc. I assumed these packages are important enough to be on the pre-release build process anyway. And before someone asks: no, I am not overclocking my machine. I am not using unstable or CVS versions of anything. I just want to run a system using the latest version of each of the major packages, including binutils, gcc, glibc and Qt. That ought to be possible, right? I mean, come on, Qt is the most important C++ project! For many people it is the only reason to install C++ support at all! Are you telling me that noone has compiled Qt with the current gcc and binutils yet?