X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=JEaGU7Kfppp/yJw3bECZ/jLKasbYZr5GuJuYyhoqSvY=;
        b=copvcn9GlibLltik/24KDbqb22b6fLnUxXNk9oy8p702LAZ6n0Fnxe4l2GjqzhxlWf
         lPxmpgfaPjnL2KVW8yE/FkQiDrY/+BiJc3U/NiPj3S9W13MEUwr2i1EKz/tAOYvPIj/l
         pwbP513ZbCaNF6XuDrfxbIhvOPf0ZY7jfmot11iRNo7Y/kCy23ex2421lMcJ0X+qM3Wq
         1kUguCzj0+U3V96rjdpXi4hXd2Kgye8UjibebFJf83rgDtty6NB4UmP9hRDx1u5wBYWv
         zKy01zqqs3yFegwgMwKFxnCLK5rJhNHa1zqxqfei1ZCc/tduIex7u6W5lDeKzszkO4+z
         PaKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.169.157 with SMTP id f29mr27202492ioj.74.1433449618080;
 Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5570B1F7.1070509@iki.fi>
References: <55673F0B DOT 1090103 AT iki DOT fi>
	<83twuwwshg DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<55675040 DOT 9030008 AT iki DOT fi>
	<556F6E49 DOT 8010006 AT gmx DOT de>
	<556FCCDF DOT 7080005 AT iki DOT fi>
	<83bngvr0ef DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<557078B1 DOT 9040004 AT iki DOT fi>
	<201506041613 DOT t54GDT8m014488 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<5570B1F7 DOT 1070509 AT iki DOT fi>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 23:26:57 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA2C=vApm9U-fHJHgQwrZF7-WBvoGeBRvc1iMF2agNErqqq_mA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DJGPP v2.05: some thoughts
From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 6/4/15, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> On 06/04/2015 07:13 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> Yes, I suggested it and posted suggestion to get some feedback. I
>>> took however Your notice that it would change building other
>>> packages into account. I guess we need to get 2.05 out (2.03 is
>>> simply already too ancient) and we do not need another eternal
>>> beta. That's why I would prefer not to integrate changes into 2.05.
>> And I added that a quick 2.05 followed by a 2.06 was OK (and better
>> than a multi-year beta)
>>
>> It's a side-effect of Charles's Law.  If we ship an official 2.05,
>> we'll actually hear about the bugs, and can fix them in 2.06.
>>
>>
> Branch is created for v2.05.
>
> Shortly after that found a showstopper bug:
>
> Konsole output
> echo '#include <iostream>' | i586-pc-msdosdjgpp-gcc -c -x c++ -std=c++11 -
> -o /dev/null
>
> (hint: replace i586-pc-msdosdjgpp-gcc with simple gcc for native build)
>
> Works OK with with -std=c++03, fails with -std=c++11 and -std=c++14
>
> The problem is that our errno.h gets almost completely excluded
>
> Andris
>
> PS. following seems to workaround the problem:
>
> Konsole output
> --- errno.h.orig        2015-06-04 23:12:46.745892048 +0300
> +++ errno.h     2015-06-04 23:13:13.382210708 +0300
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>
> #endif /* (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) || !__STRICT_ANSI__ */
>
> -#ifndef __STRICT_ANSI__
> +#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || defined(__cplusplus)
>
> #define E2BIG          3
> #define EACCES         4
>

Do we really have to confine those errnos to !__STRICT_ANSI__ ?