LSB patch to gcc 3.3 tree

[Doug Beattie]

So I'm trying to stay up with this, but getting a little confused.

Who is now responsible for getting the changes checked into CVS?
I don't believe those of us from the LSB side don't have access.
I'm not even sure what the agreed changes are at this point.

Gaby, are you the one to say what will go in and who will put it in
or will someone else step up to do this?

Is there a timeframe for its being done?

Thanks for clarification.

Doug

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:15:57AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> You Wrote Michael Matz
> > Hi again,
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> >> > >> +  _ZNSt23__codecvt_abstract_base*;
> >> > >> +
> >> > >>  } GLIBCPP_3.2.3;
> >> >
> >> > This should be in a new section, GLIBCPP_3.2.5
> >> >
> >> > Please just use the 3.4. style instead of these blanket exports.
> >>
> >> Okay.
> >
> > Hmm, now looking at 3.4 and head.  Both contain:
> > ----------------
> >     # std::__codecvt_abstract_base*
> >     _ZNStSt23__codecvt_abstract_base*;
> > ----------------
> >
> > I.e. first it's also a glob (in difference to for instance the typeinfo
> > struct for this class), and second it's wrong.  Namely the '_ZNStSt23...'
> > contains 'St' twice where the symbols are named '_ZNSt23...' .
> >
> > So, question is, is >=3.4 indeed broken, and can I nevertheless use those
> > globs for std::__codecvt_abstract_base members?
> 
> Yes.  See Benjmain's message
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-06/msg00360.html
> 
> Thanks,
> 

--