[openbeosstorage] Re: libstdc++.r4.so
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:18:25 +0200 CEST
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:
