This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 64bit: cygstdc++-6.dll
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:24:47 +0100
- Subject: Re: 64bit: cygstdc++-6.dll
- References: <514C9EB4 dot 4000203 at gmail dot com> <20130323095047 dot GC2387 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <514EBA42 dot 7010701 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <20130325085219 dot GF2387 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <5150164E dot 1020009 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Mar 25 10:18, marco atzeri wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 9:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar 24 03:33, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>On 2013-03-23 04:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>On Mar 22 19:11, marco atzeri wrote:
> >>>>latest libstdc++6-4.8-20130319-1
> >>>>
> >>>>has at least a missing entry point from previous dll
> >>>>
> >>>>cmake fails with
> >>>>"_ZTVN10_cxxabiv117_class_type_infoE could not be located"
> >>>
> >>>However, a quick glance into the symbols exported by libstdc++.a
> >>>shows that the above symbol exists, but with additional leading
> >>>underscores:
> >>>
> >>> _ZTVN10__cxxabiv117__class_type_infoE
> >>> ^ ^
> >>
> >>It's hard to see, but the error message actually does have double
> >>underscores.
> >
> >I don't quite understand. From what Marco pasted above, it doesn't.
>
> I copied manually from the windows error message, so Yaakov highlighted
> that I have missed the double underscores as "hard to see".
Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
> >>In any case, the error is a result of adding one of Dave Korn's patches:
> >>
> >>http://cygwin-ports.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-ports/gcc;a=blob;f=4.7-libstdc-dllimport.patch;hb=refs/heads/4.8#l29
> >>
> >>I have omitted that patch in the new 4.8.0-1. Hopefully Dave can
> >>explain the purpose and necessity of that patch, since it would seem
> >>that using (at least that hunk of) it would require rebuilding most
> >>C++ packages in 64bit/release; if it's really necessary, then we
> >>will want to do that sooner rather than later.
> >
> >That I don't quite understand either. If this is only about missing
> >exported symbols and not about the name, how are the already built
> >C++ packages affected? They could be built, so they didn't use this
> >symbols, apparently.
> >
> >I'm slightly confused now...
Still...
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat