[CentOS] upgrade problem

[Brian T. Brunner]

>>>>mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net 09/20/05 11:16AM >>>
> ***pedantic*** I have to get the compiler to compile the code, the language definition won't do that.
> ***pragmatic*** I'm here to drain the swamp, not analyze the alligators.
> ***overall** How did the compilers change in what they tolerate.

Certainly. I didn't mean something silly like "Well, the compiler
is broken today. I guess I'll go home and watch TV."

***Good... because I don't have one (Troglodyte!)***

If the compiler is broken, then it will soon be fixed. 

***Until then I gotta adapt code that worked with one broken compiler to another broken compiler.

> Also, the C Language did not recently change.
> 
> ***the compiler is the  cop, the language definition is the law***

Cops which break the law go to jail just like everyone else.
Eventually, the cops enforce the law as written.

***I'm going to guess: you're white, male, and economically rather well off.
***Because of this, your "world" basically "works" and crooked cops are the exception that get brought to justice for breaking the rules.
***(some) Cops ignoring (some of) the law is the way things are; in some places that *is* the rule the judges uphold. BTDT.
***It isn't what's wanted, it's what is.  All compilers are partly broken, yes?  
***Microsoft fixes theirs faster because they're a bigger corporation, Yes? Or is it a law unto itself immune to outside judgment?
***GCC will improve.  It will go from broken to broken-differently.  
***It is (truthfully) believed that the subsequent implementations are broken less where they were broken before, and increases in breakage come in part from new technology (HT/MP/SSE/etc)
***A summary of the brokenness in 2.96 addressed in 3.4 is what's wanted.

what you had looks like it should have worked. But the compiler seems to have
an internal problem. If "{0}" works, then "{((MsgIdT)0)}" should
also work.

*** We agree.  When theory meets reality, theory ALWAYS wins, and reality NEVER cares.

I'd suggest creating a minimal file which reproduces the problem
and filing an error report. In the meantime, I'd change the source
to look like this:

*** I'll have to do this: experiment my way around this newer, differently-broken compiler.
***Why? Because the summary-of-changes I seek appears to not have been created.

>>Why the compiler decided we can't initialize an auto union with a 
>>type-cast scalar when we used to do so with no problem
>>*should* have been recorded somewhere, if so, that document
>>*should* give me other clues about what's making the 3.x compiler 
>>barf on this 2.96-happy code.

I find the "-D_GCC_" to be highly suspicious for these reasons (at least)

**Trimming the compiler option line is one thing I'll try.

I wouldn't duplicate the message id like that,

***It allows testing the message ID whether you've got a pointer-to-the-union OR a pointer-to-a-subordinate-structure.

The message you reported sounds like an internal error.

***The "can't find register to spill" came from other code.



Brian Brunner
brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com
(610)796-5838

*******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.

www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated