FreeLists / openbeosstorage / [openbeosstorage] Re: libstdc++.r4.so

[Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004-07-28 at 10:39:27 [+0200], 
Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I have been wrestling with the OBOS^H^H^H^HHaiku-provided
> > libcppunit.so for
> > several days only to find out that the crashes I observed were in
> > fact
> > caused by the buggy std::string implementation living in libstdc++
> > .r4.so.
> > If anyone is interested, I have a small testprogram that exposes the
> > bug(s)
> > (on my machine).
> 
> Sure, that would be nice to have! Can you add it to our tests?

Yes, but where to add it? This kind of test doesn't seem to fit in the 
existing structure under src/tests, as it really is a test for a library 
which doesn't exist yet (whoa). How about creating src/tests/libs/libstdc++ 
and putting the test there (others will have to go in there once we have 
the lib)?

> > Someone mentioned that the source for the
> > R5-version isn't available, but I wonder if this really is true. I
> > (maybe
> > naively) think that libstdc++.r4.so is just a collection of template
> > instantiations, so the source is actually found in the headers...
> 
> I'm afraid it's a bit more, looking at the symbols it exports.

Yes, you are right. I've just checked and it's not just templates of course 
>:o/

> > During my tests, I have found out that Zeta (maybe Dano, too)
> > provides a
> > different libstc++.r4.so, which contains a fixed std:string
> > implementation.
> > Surprisingly, the Zeta-version seems to contain a different set of
> > template-instantiations, as I needed to relink to get my testprograms
> > started.
> 
> Hm, do you mean you had to recompile with Zeta headers, or that you
> couldn't run your executable on Zeta?

What I meant to (but didn't) say is that after I copied the zeta-libstdc++ 
over to r5 (replacing the native one), my program wouldn't start anymore, 
missing some symbols. Doing a recompile fixes this (I suppose this has to 
do with weak symbols or the like[?]). On a sidenote: the recompiled program 
wouldn't start with the R5-lib, missing some other symbols...

> I thought that we could take the most up-to-date libstdc++ from GCC and
> compare it's headers with the Be version. If they are reasonable
> similar, it might be a good idea to take that GCC version and transform
> it to a compatible one.

Hm, I am not sure just how *similar* these libs will be, as gcc is well 
over 3.4 by now and we are still using 2.9. If at all possible, I'd like to 
avoid the risk of our (broken) gcc failing to compile the current version 
in (perhaps not so) subtle ways. Judging from the fun Ingo had with our gcc 
and templates, I'd say we better leave that for later...

It just came to my mind that all the code contained in libstdc++.r4.so is 
GPLed, so maybe I should just ask Alan Westbrook for the source. Using that 
would have two advantages, I think:
        - the code is tested to work with our gcc
        - any changes that Be might have applied to get things working 
          are actually in there >;o)

That being said, I still believe that Haiku should probably switch to 
another STL-lib, be it the current gcc-one or STLport or whatever. But 
taking into account the size of such a task and the pressure to get the lib 
working soon, I suggest we should trust the existing code. 

I am still a Haiku-newbie, of course, so any other opinions on this are 
greatly appreciated!

> If you need any more help, please shout, too :)
> Do you already have access to our CVS repository? Do you want one?

No, I haven't, but yes, I'd like CVS-access. I promise to be well-behaved 
(for the first couple of days >;o)

cheers,
        Oliver