c++/3082

[Loren James Rittle]

The following reply was made to PR c++/3082; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
To: nathan@codesourcery.com
Cc: ljrittle@acm.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
        gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/3082
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:03:48 -0500 (CDT)

 Hi Nathan,
 
 In article <3B20D206.C5FCA6F3@codesourcery.com>,
 Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:
 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=3Dview&pr=3D3082&database=3Dgcc
 > I agreee, this should be high priority.
 
 >> Patch posted to libstdc++-v3, gcc-patches and installed on mainline
 > are you refering to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg00325.ht=
 ml
 
 Sorry about not clarifying which patch set exactly.  Yes, that patch
 along with:
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg00330.html
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg00400.html (if you want
 alpha/ELF working as best as possible with the other patches, but it
 is not strictly required)
 
 Additional commentary:
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg00327.html
 
 > or something else? Have you booted that patch on a 3.0 prerelease?
 > Please provide cluons :-)
 
 =46rom that e-mail:
 
 i386-unknown-freebsd4.2 (many earlier versions on mainline)
 i386-unknown-freebsd4.2 (this version on 3.0 branch)
 alpha-unknown-freebsd4.2 (this version on 3.0 branch)
 i386-*-linux* (very close to this version on 3.0 branch)
 hppa-*-hpux10* (very close to this version on 3.0 branch)
 hppa-*-hpux11* (very close to this version on 3.0 branch)
 sparc-sun-solaris2.7 (this version on 3.0 branch however
  I don't usually build this target and every C++ test fails with:
  ld.so.1: [...]: fatal: relocation error: R_SPARC_32: file [...]/libstdc++.=
 so.3:
  symbol __gxx_personality_v0:  offset 0xff31cbe2 is non-aligned ---
  This could be because I have an old/bad binutils; I used
  --with-gnu-as and --with-gnu-ld or whatever.  I have checked at the
  source level that things are being setup properly for threads on this
  port and I think the failure is independent of this patch but I have
  not verified that yet.)