Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00435200C0C for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:54:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id F3061160B4D; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:53 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 4302F160B35 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:54:53 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 20388 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2017 17:54:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 20369 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jan 2017 17:54:52 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id AB5781A02A8 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.021 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k7LFscj63YkD for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id CEAB35F4A6 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5432C81F07 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-119-141.rdu2.redhat.com (ovpn-119-141.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.119.141]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0UHrnTL001840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:53:50 -0500 Message-ID: <1485798829.5438.9.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: HELP -> Need C++ complation assistance/advice/guidance From: Andrew Stitcher To: users@qpid.apache.org Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:53:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <62c7c093c5064faa8cc1d5234e789f6e@SAIC.COM> References: <62c7c093c5064faa8cc1d5234e789f6e@SAIC.COM> Organization: Red Hat Inc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:53:50 +0000 (UTC) archived-at: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:54 -0000 On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 15:12 +0000, Flores, Paul A. wrote: > Hi, > > At client site.  Attempting to move from the C++ API from 0.34 to > 1.36 but have run into an aggravating issue. > > Client environment is RHEL 5 using G++ (GCC) 4.1.2.20080704 (Red Hat > 4.1.2-54).  Plan to move to RHEL 6 is in the works but is not likely > to occurring in the near timeframe. > > The following is the error we are seeing. > > Error: ‘INT64_MAX’ was not declared in this scope >            Macro ‘INT64_MAX’ is defined in stdint.h, which is a C-99 > library. > > The appropriate compiler directive flags which signal it’s being used > in C++ appears correct. > > Client technical management is weighing staying at 0.34 until the > move to RHEL 6 is "finalized" but developers want to move to from > 0.34 to 1.36 need resolution to convince management. > > Any insights/suggestions would be welcomed and appreciated! I think the underlying issue here is that C99 is not officially incorporated in C++03. But I don't honestly remember the precise situation here. The file to look at is qpid/sys/IntegerTypes.h which selects which version of the stdint.h headers to use - you might get some idea from the Visual Studio bits, which also don't support these C99 definitions in earlier versions and so manually define some of these macros. Bear in mind that the OS and compiler versions you are using are not even supported by Red Hat any longer, so the sooner you move to RHEL6 the better off you will be. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org