From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200205261159.g4QBxVO22330@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: refresh++
In-Reply-To:	<002701c2047b$d47437f0$0102a8c0@acceleron> "from Andrew Cottrell
	at May 26, 2002 04:08:29 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 26 May 2002 13:59:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Andrew Cottrell:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > What is this crap? Surely an empty format string is allowed and ok. I
> > suggest you find if there's a specific warning that can be switched
> > off and do that.
> 
> 1) No it is not crap and I take offence at your comment.

Why would you? It's not your fault that gcc is behaving outrageously.

> 2) If you had read the entire thread then you will have seen that the empty
> string is the problem with GCC 3.1
> 3) As inidicated in this thread and another thread the LIBC code needs to be
> patched in order for it to compile with GCC 3.1 that has been released.

Yes. Why (extremely strong expletive) is gcc complaining about
perfectly legal and useful code.

The fact that libc happily changes their code to comply with broken
gcc behaviour does not say much.

> By the way have you tried to rebuild the LIBC with GCC 3.1? If not could you
> give it a go and let me know what you find as this would be very helpfull
> and will allow me to asertain if I have totally screwed up my system or
> there is some other issue lurking in the background that I have not found
> yet.

No. My WINDOZE box is broken. And if this is the behaviour of gcc
perhaps I won't bother with it until it's corrected (in gcc).


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -