Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
I had to use the following hack to allow this bit to go through my g++ compiler.
I'm using RedHat 8.0, so this gives me:
[dimi(a)dimi wine.src]$ g++ --version g++ (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7) Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Glad you included the warranty bit :-)
Any ideas what's wrong here, and how it can be fixed?
Not particularly, but I know I've seen other examples of g++ being more strict / particular about structs than gcc. What error do you get? You could try -E for the preprocessor output and search through it for DUMMYSTRUCTNAME ; it could be being defined earlier on or somewhere else in a way that confuses it here...
DUMMYSTRUCT is defined as nothing if the compiler supports nameless structs. GNU C++ was mistakenly believed by me to support nameless structs. I didn't check however, I have check now and it seem like no version of GNU C++ does. :-( Not that it really needs to support it since you could get the same effect with "dummy" structs/classes and inheritence, but then I really can't see any particular reason not to support it since makes at least as much sense (if not more) in C++ to have unnamed structs as in C... Anyway, there is a patch in wine-patches that fixes the problem and since it as I said is always possible to "fake it" in C++ there is no great need to ask the GNU C++ developers the fix the problem either...
participants (1)
-
Patrik Stridvall