Issue 308 - build appears to assume gcc-2.95.2
Summary: build appears to assume gcc-2.95.2
Status: CLOSED NOT_AN_OOO_ISSUE
Alias: None
Product: Build Tools
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: 613
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Unknown
QA Contact: issues@www
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2001-01-19 10:44 UTC by issues@www
Modified: 2003-12-06 14:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description issues@www 2001-01-19 10:44:33 UTC 
Summary should be fairly self-explanatory. This makes the code extremely
non-portable even between linux distributions, many of which are now using
gcc-2.95.3, and some earlier versions.
Comment 1 sander_traveling 2001-01-19 12:09:54 UTC 
The code does NOT assume gcc 2.95.2 - it assumes a non-broken C++ compiler that
supports all needed features. gcc 2.95.2 (and .3, which is btw. supported by
configure since 613). Other suitable compilers are the Sun Workshop/Forte
compilers 5.0 and 6 update 1. 

You should at least try to investigate the issue before filing an issue.
Comment 2 issues@www 2001-01-19 12:48:37 UTC 
Sander...

sorry, Eazel may use their bugzilla tree differently. When in doubt we usually
file the bug anyway (note my use of ambiguity, "appears to assume..."). The
configure.in for 613 is laced with mention of requiring 2.95.2+ (implying that
2.95.3 should work), but does not succesfully locate 2.95.3 paths such as
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.3. I believe there are ac macros that handle
finding this path automatically, btw.
Comment 3 sander_traveling 2001-01-19 13:03:48 UTC 
Sorry, the body ('exteremly unpotrable', etc.)  just came over as a bit strongly
worded. If configure does indeed not correctly detect gcc 2.95.3, please file a
new bug report for that - I'd rather leave this one as 'resolved invalid'. 

You might also want to asisgn it directly to me.
Comment 4 michael.bemmer 2003-03-12 14:21:03 UTC 
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved
<wontfix/duplicate/worksforme/invalid> issues. Please see this posting for
details. First step in IssueZilla is unfortunately to set them to verified.
Comment 5 michael.bemmer 2003-03-12 14:21:30 UTC 
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved
<wontfix/duplicate/worksforme/invalid> issues. Please see this posting for
details. First step in IssueZilla is unfortunately to set them to verified.
Comment 6 michael.bemmer 2003-03-12 14:21:37 UTC 
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved
<wontfix/duplicate/worksforme/invalid> issues. Please see this posting for
details. First step in IssueZilla is unfortunately to set them to verified.
Comment 7 michael.bemmer 2003-03-12 14:39:09 UTC 
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved
<wontfix/duplicate/worksforme/invalid> issues. Please see this posting for details.
Comment 8 michael.bemmer 2003-03-12 14:39:31 UTC 
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved
<wontfix/duplicate/worksforme/invalid> issues. Please see this posting for details.