Re: __gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 25 May 2011 17:21,  <asyropoulos@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> This is supposed to be the GNU C/C+/ compiler not the compiler of the
>>> GNU C,
>>> GNU C++, etc. languages, so this is not an answer.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you say that.
>
> From http://gcc.gnu.org/:
>
> #The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C,
> Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as
> #libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).

Did you miss this bit:

**********
> GCC was originally
> written as the compiler for the GNU operating system.
**********

> #The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the sense
> that it respects the user's freedom.
>
> Here it is clearly stated that this is a C, C++, etc. compiler not something

It doesn't say "ISO C".

> else. And when you press the C link it
> shows to what degree the compiler supports the standard.

That link was only very recently added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-05/msg00102.html
That page was chosen because there isn't a better page for the C
front-end, it's not really a good choice. It documents the conformance
to C99, and the default for GCC is -std=gnu90, not even -std=gnu99 let
alone -std=c99


>?So what don't you
> understand?

You're arguing with two maintainers of GCC about what GCC is.

I can't see any result except making yourself look silly.


>> The compiler is a sharp knife. ?You can make it do what you want.
>
> No it is a tool that is supposed to work compilers work.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

It's a tool, yes. A very flexible one, so there have to be some
defaults chosen for its behaviour.  No set of defaults will please
everyone, so on that basis keeping the same defaults as we have now
causes the least disruption.

>> The default behaviour is not going to change.
>
> Too bad for GNU and gcc. And I had the impression that this is all about
> standards
> that everyone should follow...

Your impression was wrong, it's not "all about" any single thing,
because what defines a useful compiler means different things to
different people.

I care very much about making G++ conform closely to the C++ standard
so I can use it to write conforming code whenever possible, but I
disagree that all extensions should be disabled by default.   If you
want GCC to follow the standards you can use the appropriate switches.
 Even if your preference is "right", changing the defaults would force
your opinion on everyone else and cause a lot of wasted time and
anger.