stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Black <>
Subject Re: [PING] STDCXX-358: [gcc/Mac OS X 10.4.8 Tiger] The unsetenv() function may be defined without a return value.
Date Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:00:15 GMT
Greetings all.

I've got a slightly delayed response to the ping.  I ran some test 
builds recently, using the 3.3, 4.0.1 and 4.2.0 compilers.  The sanity 
comp test failed when I tried to use the 3.3 compiler, but I may not 
have installed it completely.  (The message was something about cc1plus 
not found.)  Building using the 4.0.1 compiler (From Xcode 4.2.1) 
resulted in a failure to compile the library due to STDCXX-262.  (I'll 
update that in a minute.)  Building using the 4.2.0 compiler (built from 
the unmodified gnu sources) appears to have been successful, though I 
had issues trying to run the generated executables.  I thought it was an 
environment issue, but I may not have remembered to build the test 
driver - I'll try to check on this over the weekend.

--Andrew Black

Martin Sebor wrote:
> Andrew and/or Brad,
> Do you have an update on this?
> Thanks
> Martin
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Eric Lemings Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:32 AM
>>>> To: ''
>>>> Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (STDCXX-358) [gcc/Mac OS X 10.4.8 
>>>> Tiger] The unsetenv() function may be defined without a return value.
>>>> I'm not sure if Apple has a bug report open on the problem but the GCC
>>>> bug report is documented here:
>> I closed STDCXX-262 in March after applying your patch. Are you
>> saying the patch doesn't resolve the problem? FWIW, from his
>> comment on the issue Andrew seems to think the problem still
>> exists but he didn't reopen it so I'm not sure what's going
>> on (I don't have a machine to test it on yet).
>> If one of you guys can test the patch and conclusively confirm
>> whether it fixes the problem or not that would be helpful. If
>> it doesn't, it would also be helpful if you could reopen the
>> issue.
>> Thanks
>> Martin

View raw message