[mythtv] problem with tonights cvs?

[Chad McQuinn]

On 6/29/03 1:05 PM, "Matt Zimmerman" <mdz at debian.org> wrote:

[on the subject of && vs 'and']
> What version of gcc 2.95.2 exactly?  Debian woody shipped with 2.95.4 and
> 3.0.4, using 2.95.4 by default.  3.0.4 accepts it, while 2.95.4 does not.

This is apple's 2.95.2 (darwin). It is heavily modified for the objective-c
portions, but I was under the impression that the c++ support (which was not
good in this version of gcc) was untouched.

 
> dijkstra:[~] cat and.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int main() {
>       if (true and false)
>               printf("Reality is inconsistent\n");
>       else
>               printf("What a relief!\n");
> 
>       return 0;
> }


This program compiles correctly with apple's gcc 2.95.2 (with an explicit
g++ call, since it is a .c file). However, I notice in the c++ options for
gcc 2.95:

"-foperator-names 
Recognize the operator name keywords and ,bitand ,bitor ,compl ,not ,or and
xor as synonyms for the symbols they refer to. `-ansi' implies
`-foperator-names' ."

So it looks like operator names were turned off by default for this version
(at least in the official distribution) of gcc. I don't know at what point
they became part of the (draft) standard, but I've been using them for many
years (obviously not on older gcc's, though).

-Chad