Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: rebasing new packages?!
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:37:48 +1000
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5FAE@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Jason Tishler" <jason AT tishler DOT net>, <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g43Nbrs15861



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Tishler [mailto:jason AT tishler DOT net] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:34 AM
> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: rebasing new packages?!
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:55:31PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > b) is an alternative approach to what I've already 
> documented here. So 
> > it covers libstc++ aka libg++-3. I don't know how much of 
> the STL that 
> > includes (see my earlier email).

> 
> Can we remove the "-Werror" option and start using STL in setup.exe?

IF there are warnings, they should be cleaned up. The Werror option
stays unless there is a compelling reason not to use it. At -O2 inlines
are only done on code within the class declaration and code marked as
inlinable, so this particular warning should be resolvable. Looking at
it, they are trying to inline a recursive function call.... I don't know
if that is or isn't an issue for newer gcc's, but it sure sounds like
our one doesn't like it. 

There are 3 instances of that function call in the g++-3 directory, one
from within it, and two from the template right below it's definition.

Perhaps removing the explicit inline from the definition is appropriate?
(-O3 will automatically inline it, and probably get that warning again,
but casual users would be safe.

Or perhaps it's resolved in newer g++-3 versions, and we can update?

Rob