f



[ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.10, STLPORT, GCC 3.3 & SunOS 5.8

Hi Rajesh,

>> 1] I'm using the configure script to create the makefiles.  I don't
>> see any option to specify I would like to use STLPORT instead of
>> libstdc++.  How do I set this?  Of course, I can hack the makefile
>> to add this path, but is this the recommended method or is there a
>> better option?

Chad/J.T., is there some way to do this?

>> If anyone has this working, inputs are greatly appreciated.

>> 2] Does ace internally use STL?

Not very much.

>> I can see some configure options while configuring ace which
>> relates to STL, do I have to set some option to tell ACE not to use
>> STL internally or are ACE STL like functions independent of STL?

Yes, that's the goal.  If you run into problems please use the PRF and
let us know.

Thanks,

        Doug
-- 
Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt                       Professor and Associate Chair
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science  TEL: (615) 343-8197
Institute for Software Integrated Systems    WEB: www.dre.vanderbilt.edu/~schmidt
Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN, 37203   NET: d.schmidt@vanderbilt.edu

0
Douglas
3/28/2006 4:45:25 PM
comp.soft-sys.ace 20326 articles. 1 followers. marlow.andrew (167) is leader. Post Follow

0 Replies
663 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 57

Reply:

Similar Artilces:

ACE 5.4.10, STLPORT, GCC 3.3 & SunOS 5.8
1] I'm using the configure script to create the makefiles. I don't see any option to specify I would like to use STLPORT instead of libstdc++. How do I set this? Of course, I can hack the makefile to add this path, but is this the recommended method or is there a better option? If anyone has this working, inputs are greatly appreciated. 2] Does ace internally use STL? I can see some configure options while configuring ace which relates to STL, do I have to set some option to tell ACE not to use STL internally or are ACE STL like functions independent of STL? Thanks! ...

RE: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3)
Hi Tom, > > > The "resolution" was to upgrade to ACE-5.4.3 or later, which has > > > code fixes to help with the newer compiler. Not sure how > much would > > > need to change, but you may be able to inspect the differences in > > > that part of the code wrt the newer ACE release to backport the > > > fixes. > > Thanks, I've downloaded and am building. Is ACE-5.4.3 the latest > > production release ? > > Well, the definition of "production release" for ACE is a bit murky > imho. Production release is one with 2 numbers. E.g., 5.4 > The developers on this list (almost) always recommend using the > latest package, which is typically labeled a "beta release". > The latest > would be 5.4.4. The developers always recommend *not* using the > "production release", since the next release labeled "beta" > is always a bug-fix-only release. I believe I qualify as a "developer", but have a different take. Production releases are tested well, and often better than the BFO beta. There may be fixes in BFO, but there may be additional bugs also - it happened at 5.4.1. For those wishing to adopt a version of ACE and stick with it, you'll need a version you can get support (fixes and advice) for. For example, Riverace supports releases (e.g., 5.4) and fix kits that Riverace releases for those (i...

RE: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3) #2
Hi J.T., Right... The issue is a bit odd... Here's the check I added for ACE: dnl This check was added to work around a system-supplied header dnl (/usr/include/netinet/ip.h) that won't compile with Visual Age C++ dnl unless the _NO_BITFIELDS preprocessor macro is defined. The comments dnl there recommend use of _NO_BITFIELDS (and recode where needed to allow dnl that), but we won't just turn it on. Check to see if it's needed. Note dnl that this check is related to headers but done before we really know if dnl the header is present. Thus, if the bare compile fails, but succeeds dnl with _NO_BITFIELDS, set the flag, else leave things alone. -Steve -- Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation Adding Service to Open Source Software ACE book info at http://www.riverace.com/acebooks/ > -----Original Message----- > From: J.T. Conklin [mailto:jtc@acorntoolworks.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:21 PM > To: Colm McHugh > Cc: Steve Huston; ace-users@cs.wustl.edu > Subject: Re: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after > GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3) > > > Colm McHugh <cmchugh@callixa.com> writes: > >>Sure... Why do you say <sys/machine.h> is a prerequisite for > >><netinet/tcp.h>? I addressed a problem related to this in > the autoconf > >>support for AIX that'll go in the next beta, but it doesn't involve...

RE: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3) #2
Hi Colm, Ok, thanks for that explanation. I solved this a different way for a similar problem that showed up with Visual Age C++ on AIX 5.2... When the 5.4.5 beta comes out, please try this again and hopefully no further workarounds will be needed. Thanks, -Steve -- Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation Adding Service to Open Source Software ACE book info at http://www.riverace.com/acebooks/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Colm McHugh [mailto:cmchugh@callixa.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:05 PM > To: Steve Huston > Cc: ace-users@cs.wustl.edu > Subject: Re: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after > GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3) > > > > >Sure... Why do you say <sys/machine.h> is a prerequisite for > ><netinet/tcp.h>? I addressed a problem related to this in > the autoconf > >support for AIX that'll go in the next beta, but it doesn't involve > >machine.h. > > > Hi Steve, > > that statement is based on the compilation sequence shown > below (done on > an AIX 5.2): > > $ cat t2.cpp > #include <sys/machine.h> > #include <netinet/tcp.h> > int main() > {} > $ g++ t2.cpp > $ cat t1.cpp > #include <netinet/tcp.h> > int main() > {} > $ g++ t1.cpp > In file incl...

Re: [ace-users] g++ 3.4.3 and ACE 5.5 & TAO 1.5
Hi, Please upgrade to ACE/TAO 1.5.3 which you can obtain from http://download.dre.vanderbilt.edu. Regards, Johnny Willemsen Remedy IT Postbus 101 2650 AC Berkel en Rodenrijs The Netherlands www.theaceorb.nl / www.remedy.nl "M@uro!!" <mauro.gaddo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1161692263.239945.111960@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>... > During compiling on HP-UX 11.11 with g++ i have the following error: > > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I../.. -I.. -DACE_HAS_ACE_TOKEN > -DACE_HAS_ACE_SVCCONF -DACE_BUILD_DLL -DHPUX_VERS=1111 -w -W -Wall > -Wpointer-arith -g -O2 -pthread -pipe -I. -I.. -MT > libACE_la-OS_NS_stdio.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/libACE_la-OS_NS_stdio.Tpo -c > ../../ace/OS_NS_stdio.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/libACE_la-OS_NS_stdio.o > ../../ace/OS_NS_stdio.cpp: In function `int ACE_OS::fprintf(FILE*, > const wchar_t*, ...)': > ../../ace/OS_NS_stdio.cpp:242: error: `::vfwprintf' has not been > declared > > Can someone helps me? > > Thanks!! > M. > ...

[ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3)
Hi Tom, > Well, the definition of "production release" for ACE is a bit murky > imho. Please see http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE_wrappers/docs/ACE-development-process.html for the canonical definition of terms. If there's something unclear there please let me know and I'll fixit. > The developers on this list (almost) always recommend using the > latest package, which is typically labeled a "beta release". Right, the reason we do that is because the "latest release" (which is most commonly a beta release) is the only thing the DOC group developers "support". > The latest would be 5.4.4. The developers always recommend *not* > using the "production release", since the next release labeled > "beta" is always a bug-fix-only release. So I usually use the x.x.1 > release (the BFO release) but would probably recommend using 5.4.4 > on any platform, as do the developers. I think you probably know this already, but for the benefit of others on the mailing list the DOC grou doesn't actually support *anything* officially for non-sponsors, i.e., our work is all on a "best effort or no effort at all" basis, as per the explanation in http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE_wrappers/docs/ACE-bug-process.html However, some companies like Riverace, OCI, PrismTech, etc. use our "official" (i.e., non-beta) releases as the basis f...

Re: [ace-users] Compiling ACE 5.3 with GCC 3.4.3
Hi, When x.3 was released there was no GCC 3.4 version, so this will just not work, please upgrade to a newer version of ACE/TAO. Regards, Johnny Willemsen Remedy IT Postbus 101 2650 AC Berkel en Rodenrijs The Netherlands www.theaceorb.nl / www.remedy.nl "Seng-Quee.Liang" <Seng-Quee.Liang@Sun.COM> wrote in message news:<mailman.1894.1170813530.25808.ace-users@mail.cse.wustl.edu>... > Hi, > > I'm a newbie to ACE and this is my 1st posting to this alias, and would > appreciate any help. > > I have a requirement to use ACE 5.3 on Solaris 10 SPARC. I had followed > the building & installation information on ACE website to the letter and > had no problems compiling it with Sun Studio 11. > > However, when I tried compiling it with GCC 3.4.3, I'm swamped with a > host of problems. Being a newbie to ACE, I'm wondering > > a) if I'm setting the right config.h/platform_macros.GNU for GCC > compile; > b) if I should be trying add flags into these files to get it to > compile. > > Any pointers or advice is sincerely appreciated. > > > Thanks in advance. > > Best Regards, > /SengQuee > > -------- config.h for Studio 11 ----- > #include "ace/config-sunos5.9.h" > > -------- platform_macros.GNU for Studio 11 ----- > include $(ACE_ROOT)/include/makeinclude/platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU &...

[ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86
Hi Jin, >> The solaris 9/10 for sparc is not the same as solaris 9/10 for >> Intel X86,although it is almost free,and the SunStudio 9 (CC >> 5.6)for sparc is not the same as SunStudio 9(CC 5.6) for Intel X86. This is yet one more reason why you'll need to do the legwork on this. Please let us know what you find out. Thanks, Doug -- Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt, Professor TEL: (615) 343-8197 Electrical Engineering and Computer Science FAX: (615) 343-7440 Vanderbilt University WEB: www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ Nashvil...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86
Hi, >> ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 Thakns for using the PRF! >> HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: >> Solaris10 X86 We (i.e., the DOC groups at UCI/VU/WU) don't have Solaris running on an x86 box (yet). It would therefore be great if you could figure out what patches need to be applied so that ACE compiles properly on this platform. BTW, Kitty/Bala, weren't we planning on running Solaris on an AMD box at some point? Thanks, Doug >> TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: >> COMPIL...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > > Solaris10 X86 > > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with > unresolved > symbols even if you get past this pa...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Jin, >> I rebuild the ACE package according the instruction above,but get >> the same result. It doesn't look to me like you've added -DACE_HAS_X86_STAT_MACROS to the build-line as recommended by Johnny Willemsen. >> my platform_macros.GNU file has the following lines: >> >> templates = implicit >> include $(ACE_ROOT)/include/makeinclude/platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU >> >> When i rebuild the ACE library,get the following compile errors: >> $ make inline=0 -j 2 -k -f GNUmakefile.ACE >> ... >&...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Johnny- > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a not known forte > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating right now, for 4.2 > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The explicit is not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why should we patch broken stuff. Just a thought? > Qinghuajin and other Forte 9 users, you can work around this by added the > following line to your platform_macros.GNU file. > templates = implicit This is until w...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
> > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a > not known forte > > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating > right now, for 4.2 > > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit This sounds good. > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > explicit is > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > should we patch > broken stuff. Just a thought? At least for ACE 5.5, Riverace supports the Forte compiler that requires explicit. After that, we can drop it....

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
> Ok. Steve, could you maybe make clear with the build names > which builds use explicit templates? I'll try to get this clarified. > Explicit templates in TAO are known to be broken at this > moment. None of the tests at Riverace try to build TAO. -Steve ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > >> It's almost up. There are some issues with installing software as > >> we don't have the media in a compatible form yet. We also don't > >> have Sun CC, and we need to purchase a licence if we need to > >> support Sun CC. > > Ok, that's fine - thanks for the update. I think some other folks > (e.g., LMCO ATL and Remedy) have Solaris 9/10 and Sun CC, so we may > not need to worry about running Sun CC on our machine. Johnny/Gautam, > can you folks please confirm/deny whether you've got Sun CC on Solar...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a > not known forte > > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating > right now, for 4.2 > > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit > > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > explicit is > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > should we patch > broken stuff. Just a thought? I have thought also about this, but maybe there are users around we don't know if. We can drop all this after x.5 is released, until that time, I just keep it there, just as we have a lot of other stuff that is probably broken. > > Qinghuajin and other Forte 9 users, you can work around > this by added the > > following line to your platform_macros.GNU file. > > templates = implicit > > This is until we release x.4.4., right? Yes, with x.4.4 this will be done correctly. Johnny ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > Solaris10 X86 > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with unresolved symbols even if you get past this part. My $0.02. Thanks Bala > > Make: ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Everyon: My SunBlade 150 is back up and available, and has a Sun CC license, though I don't have a lot of bandwidth to admin it. Bala know where it is and has the root password. I'll probably move it into the server room once I have a chance to talk to Dan about it, but I my be out of town this week. [dhinton@blade DRM]$ uname -a SunOS blade 5.9 Generic_112233-03 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100 Solaris [dhinton@blade DRM]$ CC -V CC: Forte Developer 7 C++ 5.4 2002/03/09 [dhinton@blade DRM]$ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.2 Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Johnny- > > > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > > > Solaris10 X86 > > > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > > > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with > > > unresolved > > > symbols even if you get past this part. > > > > I missed the compiler version. But, Forte 8 gives output of > SUN C++ 5.5. Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a not known forte version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating right now, for 4.2 and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit Qinghuajin and other Forte...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Steve, > > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > > explicit is > > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > > should we patch > > broken stuff. Just a thought? > > At least for ACE 5.5, Riverace supports the Forte compiler that > requires explicit. After that, we can drop it. Ok. Steve, could you maybe make clear with the build names which builds use explicit templates? Explicit templates in TAO are known to be broken at this moment. Johnny ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Jin, Thanks for using the PRF. >> ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 >> >> HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: >> Solaris 10 x86 >> >> TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: >> COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): >> Sun Studio 9 (Sun CC 5.6) As we've mentioned several times now, we don't have this compiler installed yet on this hardware platform, so if you want things to be fixed soon I recommend you figure out what's going wrong and send us the patches. Otherwise, pl...

[ace-users] Re: Error while ACE 5.3.1 or 5.4.1 compiling and installing by MinGW 3.3.3
Hi Vitaly, Please upgrade to ACE 5.4.4, which you can download from http://deuce.doc.wustl.edu/Download.html since I think that is more likely to work with MinGW 3.3.3. Johnny, can you confirm/deny this please? Thanks, Doug >> Hi, >> I have installed MinGW packages: >> >> binutils-2.13.90-20030111-1.tar.gz >> gcc-core-3.3.3-20040217-1.tar.gz >> gcc-g++-3.3.3-20040217-1.tar.gz >> mingw-runtime-3.3.tar.gz >> w32api-2.5.tar.gz >> >> Also I've configured environment due to ACE-INSTALL.html according >> MinGW compiler. OS: WinXP SP2. >> >> $ACE_ROOT=F:\ACE531 >> >> I get next compiling error: >> F:\ACE531\ace>gmake >> gmake.EXE[1]: Entering directory `F:/ACE531/ace' >> d:\Utils\Unix\diff.EXE: -: Invalid argument >> gmake.EXE[1]: Leaving directory `F:/ACE531/ace' >> gmake.EXE[1]: Entering directory `F:/ACE531/ace' >> d:/Utils/Unix/gmake.EXE -f Makefile.dirs SUBDIR_TARGET=all >> RMCast.subdir >> gmake.EXE[2]: Entering directory `F:/ACE531/ace' >> d:/Utils/Unix/gmake.EXE -f Makefile -C RMCast all >> gmake.EXE[3]: Entering directory `F:/ACE531/ace/RMCast' >> Installing libACE_RMCast.dll -> F:\ACE531/ace >> d:\Utils\Unix\cp.EXE: F:ACE531aceRMCast/libACE_RMCast.dll: No such >> file or directory >> Installing libACE_RMCa...

[ace-users] ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3)
[Apologies if this shows up twice, there was a mailer error with my first attempt to post] Hi, I found the same problem reported recently on the mailing list ("compiling ACE under Fedora core 3", March 1st) but no resolution was reported there, so I thought I'd post a full description here. ACE VERSION: 5.4 HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: AIX 5.1 COMPILER: GNU GCC G++ 3.4.3 CONTENTS OF $ACE_ROOT/ace/config.h: // config-aix5.1.h,v 1.5 2003/12/16 17:49:48 elliott_c Exp // // Config file for AIX 5.1 // This define is needed for building with Visual Age C++ 5 in incremental // mode. In the batch mode build, platform_aix_ibm.GNU sets it. The incremental // mode compiler won't be supported after ACE 5.3, so this will also go away // in that timeframe, so don't worry about future AIX versions. #if !defined (ACE_AIX_VE...

Web resources about - [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.10, STLPORT, GCC 3.3 & SunOS 5.8 - comp.soft-sys.ace

Samsung Galaxy Ace 4 User Reviews
Samsung Galaxy Ace 4 reviews written by Phone Arena users. You can read the opinion of each user and how they rate the phone in 11 categories. ...

Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 official: iPhone-alike size for the new user
Samsung has revealed another in its Galaxy series, the Galaxy Ace 3, now targeting entry-level smartphone users who want a pocket-friendly 4-inch ...

Resources last updated: 3/5/2016 8:34:50 AM