This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gcc-in-cxx] Trunk fails to bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Pedro Lamarão <pedro dot lamarao at ccppbrasil dot org>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:06:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: [gcc-in-cxx] Trunk fails to bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx
- References: <4A774414.5000209@ccppbrasil.org> <4A959BC5.2030801@redhat.com> <20090826213654.GA18470@gmx.de> <15727b460908261524m409f0ab0n654cbed5cf6b70af@mail.gmail.com>
* Pedro LamarÃo wrote on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:24:07AM CEST:
> 2009/8/26 Ralf Wildenhues:
>
> >> >.../../trunk/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
> >> >âchar* basename(const char*)â
> >> >/usr/include/string.h:601: error: ambiguates old declaration âconst
> >> >char* basename(const char*)â
> >>
> >> The problem is that AC_CHECK_DECLS gets confused by overloaded
> >> functions, and glibc 2.10 has overloaded declarations of basename
> >> and some other string functions for const-correctness.
> >
> > Could you show the config.log snippet that shows the failed test?
> > Is this a new error due to the autotools upgrade, or new due to
> > glibc 2.10?
>
> I think this is new in glibc 2.10, for the reasons given by Jason Merrill above.
> I've discussed this problem with Jerry Quinn before, and he had a
> tentative patch that worked for me.
> As I understand things, this patch is on hold waiting for a solution
> to the bootstrap comparison problem being discussed in another thread.
>
> I am waiting for a solution to these problems to continue work on the
> std::sort gcc-in-cxx subproject; keeping all these patches up to date
> with trunk is too difficult for me right now.
> Currently, I have a patch to an old revision of the trunk.
Well, can you post the patch, or did I somehow miss it on the list?
I'd be particularly interested if it tries to fix the Autoconf test
in some sensible way.
Thanks,
Ralf