Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:54:35 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii To: Robert Hoehne cc: andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: iostream concern In-Reply-To: <34D8F566.DCEB7410@gmx.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Robert Hoehne wrote: > > I think he is referring to the one that comes with djdev. I would suggest > > trying to move towards usung the new one, since it does not > I would prefer this too (thatswy I will include it in gpp280b.zip). Let me remind you the Murfy's Law of Software Releases. One of its corollaries says that a need for a feature which was removed from a distribution as unneeded will arise within a few hours of the release that had that feature removed. Let me further remind you that we have seen this bite us several times in the past. More seriously, I think we need to wait for some time and gather user responses before we decide to make g++ supercede DJ's gxx.exe. For this reason, I think we should better call it differently. I don't have any particular sentiments for gpp.exe, but the point of my message was that it should not overwrite gxx.exe from djdev. > At first only a small change: > > [gxx] > LIBRARY_PATH=%/>;LIBRARY_PATH% Why is this needed? Does g++ barf on backslashes? If so, it should be changed to support them. Does it require the variable to end with a semi-colon, or be all lower-case? If so, why? I think we had enough trouble with the above issues to allow one more case where the exact format of the environment variable makes or breaks things. > Yes, this is confusing to me too > > libstdc++.a -> libstdcxx.a > libg++.a -> libgpp.a > g++.exe -> gpp.exe > c++filt.exe -> cxxfilt.exe > > I think we should come to one technique. Changing ++ to xx or pp, where > I prefer to change ++ to xx. I think prior practice is also important. Since names like libstdcxx and libgpp were picked up a long time ago, I say let's stick with them. > Yes, that's a good idea, but then we should aware about reports > from error messages, when the user unzip gpp280b.zip, about the > invalid g++.exe (even when all the other is extracted OK, which > I tested). The error message is printed by PKUNZIP, right? InfoZip does the right thing (extracts it as g__.exe) and never complains.