On 1/14/2015 12:58 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> As it turned out in the discussion of
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64576
>
> in GCC 5 we have a change of the default language
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
>
> Lets see if this was the only problem.
Based on the over
On January 14, 2015 12:58:26 AM CST, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>As it turned out in the discussion of
>
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64576
>
>in GCC 5 we have a change of the default language
>
>https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
>
>Lets see if this was the only problem.
I le
As it turned out in the discussion of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64576
in GCC 5 we have a change of the default language
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
Lets see if this was the only problem.
On 13/01/15 16:52, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 1/13/2015 12:11 AM, Sebastian Hu
On 1/13/2015 12:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Since this worked for a long time, this might be a CPP regression, but a
> %1 parameter doesn't really look like a C construct.
I filed this as GCC PR 64576 and am doing a git bisect now.
I would like to get a ruling and/or suggestion for it. This
