On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 07:34:55PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> So I assume that gcc-2.95 is _not_ yet "supported"?  In particular I
> guess that as long as most people are using compilers that don't (?)
> support pointer-to-(member-function)s, the "hidden this pointer" hack
> won't go away.  True?

Hi Stephen,

I did apply some patches I got for gcc 2.95, but haven't tested it
myself yet. I also cleaned up the forking of new `vprocs'. If the new
thread is a derived class, it calls an overloaded memberfunction and not
the passed pointer. And even that turned out to be tricky. Overloaded
member functions are not yet visible in the class constructors.

The -fpermissive flag is detected by the autoconf script and added, I
don't know if that helps.

> How about the other two main issues (prototypes with missing/wrong
> return types and the "goto crosses object initialization" problem, in
> vproc.cc IIRC)?

Prototypes are probably still wrong, the goto might have been fixed
by the vproc initialization changes.

My debian machine at home has only 40MB diskspace left after the potato
upgrade, so I have to figure out what to throw away, or install gcc on
another machine before I can compile with gcc 2.95.

Jan

> __________________________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________________________
> What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."