Bug 60212 – g++ in hampton seems to be confused about its headers

Bug 60212 - g++ in hampton seems to be confused about its headers

Summary:	g++ in hampton seems to be confused about its headers

Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	gcc (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.3
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jakub Jelinek
QA Contact:
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2002-02-21 21:49 EST by Michal Jaegermann
Modified:	2008-05-01 11:38 EDT (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-03-20 10:23:24 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Michal Jaegermann 2002-02-21 21:49:52 EST

Description of Problem:

During a compilation the following happens:

In file included from /usr/include/g++-v3/backward/algo.h:61,
                 from bon_time.cpp:19:
/usr/include/g++-v3/backward/tempbuf.h:70: `get_temporary_buffer' not declared
/usr/include/g++-v3/backward/tempbuf.h:71: `return_temporary_buffer' not 
   declared
make: *** [bon_time.o] Error 1

This is, BTW, result of trying to compile bonnie++-1.02a.  Never mind
that bonnie sources and 'configure' seem to be very confused, and that it
not very hard to fix _that_ one (few ways but commenting out apparently
bogus '#define USE_STL' seems to be the simplest), but headers should not
trip on symbols they include themselves.  Both `get_temporary_buffer'
and `return_temporary_buffer' are not coming from bonnie.

Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2002-02-27 06:09:34 EST

This was fixed in CVS a few days ago.

Comment 2 Jay Turner 2002-03-20 10:18:21 EST

Can you confirm this is fixed in Beta 2?

Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2002-03-20 10:23:19 EST

Yes, it is (in 3.1-0.22 and above).
Though we used just gcc-2.96-RH in beta2 (where this never existed)
and in skipjack 3.1 might be just in preview/.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.