__gnu_cxx error in OpenSolaris

[asyropoulos@aol.com]

>Did you miss this bit:
>
>**********
>> GCC was originally
>> written as the compiler for the GNU operating system.
>**********

Which means what? That the compiler should not obey a standard?


>> #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".

Yes it does:

This table is based on the list in the foreword to N1256 (ISO/IEC 
9899:1999 (E), consolidated with ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001 (E),
ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.2:2004 (E) and ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.3:2007 (E)).

>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 it is not a C compiler!

>
>You're arguing with two maintainers of GCC about what GCC is.
>
>I can't see any result except making yourself look silly.

That is, everyone who argues with GCC developers is silly? Very nice!


>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.

When you buy  screwdrivers, tools in general,. they all conform to 
standards
or else you wouldn't be able to use them. It is that simple. A compiler
must conform to standards. It must accept only strings (programs) that
follow the standard.


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

The problem is flexibility. Either you obey the standard and you have
a conforming compiler or else you have a program that is something
else. POSIX is similar example: either you follow it or don't care about
it. But if we start not to care about standards, we are in big trouble.


>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

And I strongly disagree with this last statement! This is the root of 
all
evil. This is why people create programs that do not compile in
different architectures/systems.

>want GCC to follow the standards you can use the appropriate switches.

And how can I force developers to write conforming code when the
compiler itself welcomes violation of all standards?

A.S.