From octave-maintainers-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu  Wed Jan 31 09:23:17 2001
Subject: Re: ISO C++ and Octave
From: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>
To: Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU>
Cc: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>,         octave-maintainers@bevo.che.wisc.edu
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:23:11 -0600

On 30-Jan-2001, Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU> wrote:

| On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, John W. Eaton wrote:
| 
| > On 30-Jan-2001, Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU> wrote:
| > | 
| > | 1. Just a few remaining missing namespace qualifiers, a minutes fixed
| > | those.
| > 
| > OK, if you have a patch, please send it on.
| 
| Will do, but it'll be a few days before I get to it again.
| 
| > | 2. The code for equal (src/mx-inlines.cc) currently causes a problem 
| > | for gcc-2.97/libstdc++-v3, but I haven't been able to reduce the testcase 
| > | yet. Easy workarounds: (1) use std::equal, which works with older 
| > | compilers as well, (2) explicitly use ::equal. It is not a problem in
| > | Octave code as far as I can see.
| > 
| > I'd also be willing to rename those functions to be mx_XXX to avoid
| > this kind of problem.
| 
| Easily done. I'll add that as a separate patch from (1).

OK, I picked up the most recent snapshot of gcc (as of yesterday,
anyway) and built it, then started compiling Octave.  I'll fix the
simple namespace qualifier problems, and I've fixed the mx-inlines
problems by prefixing all those functions with mx_inline_ (which makes
more sense anyway, as those are global names, and now it is easier to
figure out where they might be defined).

I'm not sure about the streams stuff yet.  I'll have to see what
happens when I reach that point (still compiling, I guess I need
faster hardware).

Thanks,

jwe