Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/07/08/12:07:52
--- Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> wrote:
>
>
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > I don't see exactly the same errors. I can't even compile your stuff
> > with g++. :-( It appears to be due to
> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs,
> > AFAICT.
>
>
> Right -- I had to change #include <iostream.h> to <iostream>, etc. I'm
> not real familiar with the source-level changes that gcc-3.x *forces*
> onto people -- but I'm not real happy about them. The price of
> progress, I suppose.
>
> Does anybody know of a good reference, along the lines of "What changed
> in g++ between gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.x"? I'm not talking about the
> innards of gcc; but rather, user-visible changes that force me to change
>
> my perfectly good 2.95.3 C++ code so that it'll compile with g++ 3.x.
>
> --Chuck
The changes are not to gcc, but to libstdc++. #include <foo.h>, from what
I gather, is a non-standard relic of libstdc++ v2. Apparently in v3, they
discourage this behavior.. (but it should just spit out a warning, not
fail to compile). FWIW, you might want to check out:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/howto.html
^---This is where your <foo> vs. <foo.h> is discussed
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/
Not being a c++ person myself, I found a lot of useful information there
that I didn't know. Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Nicholas
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -