Re: [PATCH] [RTEMS] Update RTEMS thread model

On 31/07/15 08:28, Chris Johns wrote: On 31/07/2015 4:11 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: For synchronization objects use the self-contained objects available via Newlib . https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commit;h=ecaef05f6601f1e8acb78fb65b411a258f39988a Enable the C++11

Re: [PATCH] [RTEMS] Update RTEMS thread model

On 31/07/2015 4:11 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > For synchronization objects use the self-contained objects available via > Newlib . > > https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commit;h=ecaef05f6601f1e8acb78fb65b411a258f39988a > > Enable the C++11 threads using . So, the threa

[PATCH] [RTEMS] Update RTEMS thread model

For synchronization objects use the self-contained objects available via Newlib . https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commit;h=ecaef05f6601f1e8acb78fb65b411a258f39988a Enable the C++11 threads using . So, the threads are only supported in case the POSIX API is enabled in

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

Hello Daniel, On 30/07/15 17:26, Daniel Gutson wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: > >El 30/7/2015 11:27, "Joel Sherrill" escribió: >> >> >> >>On 7/30/2015 9:08 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: >>> >>>IOW, I think that the double parens is only for decltype. >> >> >>Hist

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

Update: confirmed bug. I'll address it during next week. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Daniel Gutson > wrote: >> >> El 30/7/2015 11:27, "Joel Sherrill" escribió: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/30/2015 9:08 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: IOW

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: > > El 30/7/2015 11:27, "Joel Sherrill" escribió: >> >> >> >> On 7/30/2015 9:08 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: >>> >>> IOW, I think that the double parens is only for decltype. >> >> >> Historical convention is to put parens around variable names >

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

El 30/7/2015 11:27, "Joel Sherrill" escribió: > > > > On 7/30/2015 9:08 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> >> IOW, I think that the double parens is only for decltype. > > > Historical convention is to put parens around variable names > in macros. What type of impact does this have? If what I think is c

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

On 7/30/2015 9:08 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote: IOW, I think that the double parens is only for decltype. Historical convention is to put parens around variable names in macros. What type of impact does this have? El 30/7/2015 11:06, escribió: I don't it's a language issue: https://ideone.c

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

IOW, I think that the double parens is only for decltype. El 30/7/2015 11:06, escribió: > I don't it's a language issue: https://ideone.com/k1vz5d > El 30/7/2015 10:51, "Gedare Bloom" escribió: > >> OK, I guess this makes the convention "minimize parentheses" mandatory >> if we want C++11. I gue

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

I don't it's a language issue: https://ideone.com/k1vz5d El 30/7/2015 10:51, "Gedare Bloom" escribió: > OK, I guess this makes the convention "minimize parentheses" mandatory > if we want C++11. I guess the basic problem is that constructions > where a single atom is in parens may produce differ

Re: Nice surprise with C++11

OK, I guess this makes the convention "minimize parentheses" mandatory if we want C++11. I guess the basic problem is that constructions where a single atom is in parens may produce different results now. At least an error is emitted rather than silent optimization.. -Gedare On Thu, Jul 30, 2015