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

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)?

Sounds good to me.

[...]
> > 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...

And you only exchanged the binaries and not the headers? That's 
strange.

> > 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...

Okay, unfortunately, that's a good point! Maybe we should save that 
experience 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 sounds like a very good idea, and would probably be the best 
solution for R1.

> 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. 

Any particular reason for that? Only the license issues?

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

Then you are probably using the wrong list, but well... :-)
(Ingo is still in China :-))

> > 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)

Okay, there you have it :)

Bye,
   Axel.

Other related posts: