This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.1 and gdb 5.2? (and cygwin gcc 3.1 problem )
Yeah,I found that gcc will report link-error when I use stl in gcc3.1 on
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dylan Cuthbert" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Kai Henningsen" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: gcc 3.1 and gdb 5.2? (and cygwin gcc 3.1 problem )
> True true, although I didn't say gdb was more reliable than gcc, I just
> said gcc was more complicated and more experimental because a lot more
> people are involved in it and there's a lot more source code etc.
> By the way, if I take the 3.1 release branch and compile it under cygwin,
> then with certain types of code compiled with with the option "-g" and
> STL I get link errors related to internal STL functions being missing -
> stuff that probably should be inlined. Has anyone else seen this?
> If I take the beta version from around the end of March I don't get this
> Q-Games, Dylan Cuthbert.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kai Henningsen" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: gcc 3.1 and gdb 5.2?
> > email@example.com (Dylan Cuthbert) wrote on 13.06.02 in
> > > My next stop was going to be the gdb and cygwin lists, however, gcc is
> > > more complicated and experimental of the other two and I wanted to see
> > > anyone else was experiencing problems on other platforms too.
> > What a strange thing to say. From my experience, gcc on cygwin has been
> > stable just about forever, but gdb has a history of extreme instability
> > cygnus. (The first gdb I used on cygwin had a tendency to crash on about
> > 70% of all debugged-program crashes, and to not show any useful info on
> > about half the rest. Printf debugging was usually way faster. Or
> > reproducing the bug on Linux, of course. It's become way better, but I
> > still don't entirely trust that gdb.)
> > MfG Kai