Re: build error (2)

[Tom dot Williams at diversifiedsoftware dot com]

I, personally, don't see any reason why you would want to get the new front
end into the 2.95.x releases.  I'm happy to wait until 3.x to get the gcj
support.  One of the things that makes me SOO anxious to keep up with the
egcs snapshots is libstdc++-v3 became the default C++ library and when I
installed the egcs snapshot with this config (v3 as default), it clobbered
my gcc-2.95.2 libstdc++ libs and now I can't link ANY of my C++ programs,
even with g++ 2.95.2.  I haven't taken the time to re-install anything
because I prefer to install stuff from source.  I've also upgraded to
glibc-2.2 and I can't build gcc-2.95.2 due to compile errors I'm getting in
the libstdc++-v3 code.

Does anyone know the configure option to enable the libstdc++-v2 instead of
v3 or am I stuck with v3?

Peace.......

Tom




Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com> on 11/30/2000 04:25:46 PM

Please respond to tromey@cygnus.com

To:   Tom.Williams@diversifiedsoftware.com
cc:   apbianco@cygnus.com, osk@hem.passagen.se,
      java-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject:  Re: build error (2)


>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Williams <Tom.Williams@diversifiedsoftware.com> writes:

Tom> Of course, this has nothing to do with libgcj or gcj, but I
Tom> thought I would vent just a tad..... :-)

Stability and the relative inaccessibility of gcj and libgcj have been
problems for a long time now.

This is something we're hoping to fix with gcc 3.0.  Alex is working
madly to get libgcj into the gcc tree.  He's also doing the new ABI
work in gcj (I'll probably do the runtime side once he's determined
how he wants to handle vtable layout and the like).

Hopefully gcc 3.0 will be stable enough and deployed widely enough
that we can recommend it to almost everybody.

Also I hope that gcc 3.1, 3.2, etc, don't take as long to come out as
3.0 did.  That will let us release library improvements and front end
bug fixes on a more regular schedule.


You might have heard that there is now going to be a gcc 2.95.3
release.  I'm inclined to simpy ignore it.  If it had been started 6
months ago I would have said that we should put the new front end into
it, but now that just seems like make-work, especially given that
we're a bit behind on the gcc 3.0 work.  Any comments on this?

Tom