Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <438F6156.6040803@roguewave.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:47:18 -0700
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Benito <jb@benito.com>,  stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: stdcxx question
References: <438E1854.7070006@benito.com> <438E1F1B.20601@roguewave.com>
 <438E45F6.4080804@benito.com> <438E4BBB.8030106@roguewave.com>
 <438E5E61.5080700@benito.com> <438F3535.9030103@roguewave.com>
 <438F5C1F.8070600@benito.com>
In-Reply-To: <438F5C1F.8070600@benito.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Benito wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> The configuration for the EDG on Solaris seems to have some issues in 
> respect to the compiler command line option or maybe I am just trying to 
> build something that does not make good sense (typical tester - try each 
> and every option).  If you try to do a BUILDMODE=shared,threads it 
> passes a -shared flag to eccp, which is not a flag that EDG front-end 
> recognizes.

Yes, AFAIK, there is no way to build a shared library with EDG eccp.
The EDG eccp demo also expects gcc 3.x or better as the back end but
doesn't like the binutils that g++ 3.x normally requires on Solaris.
So in my builds I set up gcc 3/4 without GNU binutils (i.e., rely on
the native system linker). That makes eccp work but doesn't let you
use the underlying g++ to link C++ code. It's kind of a pain, but
what wouldn't I do for strict conformance? ;-)

> 
> BTW, I am working on a Solaris box that is running 5.10.  Am currently 
> seeing quite a few issues with building with EDG, is 5.10 supported?

I have 3.6 on Solaris 9 but I haven't tried it on 10 yet. Let me
give it a try and get back to you. You might be able to get a more
reliable answer straight from EDG (assuming they've tested it there).


> Have not taken the time to look at the diagnostics yet.  Currently 
> trying the command
> 
> make BUILDDIR=/home/benito/stdcxx15d BUILDMODE=debug,threads 
> CONFIG=eccp.config

I would suggest

   make BUILDDIR=/home/benito/stdcxx-11s \
        BUILDTYPE=11s \
        CONFIG=eccp.config

Martin

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jb -
> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>> John Benito wrote:
>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> Good, because that is what I did (commented out the MAPFILE).  It 
>>> seems to have built a library, will test it tomorrow.  Thanks for all 
>>> the help!
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, if you're planning to test it for conformance you should be
>> aware of the _RWSTD_STRICT_ANSI (or _RWSTD_NO_EXTENSIONS) macros
>> that, when #defined, disable most extensions. While the library
>> should be binary comatible either way you should probably build
>> it with the same setting of the macro as how you plan to test it
>> since it might also disable some extensions in the library sources.
>>
>> In addition, to achieve the the strictest possible conformance I
>> would suggest to use a recent version of EDG eccp (3.x) on Solaris.
>> With it the C library headers (such as <stddef.h> and <cstddef>)
>> do the right thing in terms of introducing the required symbols
>> only in the required namespaces and not polluting them with any
>> others. That said, due to the restriction to just the names
>> required by the C and C++ standards and nothing else the library
>> isn't terribly useful for development in this mode.
>>
>>>
>>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>>
>>
>> And happy testing to you! :)
>> Martin
>>
>>