On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> [0] was missing. Can you give me the link?
It was left as an exercise for the reader.
David E. Narvaez
[0] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56871
___
Development mailing list
Develop
On segunda-feira, 8 de abril de 2013 00.43.16, David Narvaez wrote:
> > (Note: this does not mean it was a bad idea to work around the bug)
>
> Thanks for the clarification, I reported the bug[0] - just fixed the
> section number to 7.1.5. Your sample code compiles fine in Clang, btw.
[0] was mi
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> I don't think the problem was in our code.
> I beleive GCC 4.8 Is wrong.
>
> The C++11 standard § 7.5.1 1 says:
> [ Note: An explicit specialization can differ from the template
> declaration
> with respect to the constexpr specifi
On Wednesday 27 March 2013 11:20:21 David Narvaez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Thiago Macieira
>
> wrote:
> > 1) I don't want fixes to issues that don't make it to the release of that
> > compiler. If you can find in the standard saying the new behaviour is
> > correct,
> > then fine
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> 1) I don't want fixes to issues that don't make it to the release of that
> compiler. If you can find in the standard saying the new behaviour is
> correct,
> then fine. But otherwise, it might be a compiler bug that gets fixed
> before the
On quarta-feira, 27 de março de 2013 14.17.58, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Have you changed your mind on that?
>
> Why does the release of 4.8.0 change anything?
I think of two reasons:
1) I don't want fixes to issues that don't make it to the release of that
compiler. If you can find in the standard
On Monday, March 25, 2013 16:24:01 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 25 de março de 2013 22.46.36, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 17:12:02 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 25, 2013 08:07:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > > It was a matter of timing. Since
On segunda-feira, 25 de março de 2013 22.46.36, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 17:12:02 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 08:07:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > It was a matter of timing. Since GCC 4.8 is not released yet, I can't
> > > make
> > > the case f
On Monday, February 25, 2013 17:12:02 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 08:07:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > It was a matter of timing. Since GCC 4.8 is not released yet, I can't make
> > the case for it being a P1.
>
> I fully disagree with that :). I think compile fixes for com
On Monday, February 25, 2013 08:07:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> It was a matter of timing. Since GCC 4.8 is not released yet, I can't make
> the case for it being a P1.
I fully disagree with that :). I think compile fixes for compilers that are
not released yet qualify.
But what's done is done,
On segunda-feira, 25 de fevereiro de 2013 11.31.01, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 23:19:33 David Narvaez wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Thiago Macieira
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I haven't seen any patches fixing warnings or compilation errors come in
> > > for 4.8
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 23:19:33 David Narvaez wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Thiago Macieira
>
> wrote:
> > I haven't seen any patches fixing warnings or compilation errors come in
> > for 4.8. Usually, there are a few warnings that need fixing but until my
> > -Werror patches
On sábado, 23 de fevereiro de 2013 23.19.33, David Narvaez wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Thiago Macieira
>
> wrote:
> > I haven't seen any patches fixing warnings or compilation errors come in
> > for 4.8. Usually, there are a few warnings that need fixing but until my
> > -Werror pat
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> I haven't seen any patches fixing warnings or compilation errors come in for
> 4.8. Usually, there are a few warnings that need fixing but until my -Werror
> patches land, those are not stoppers.
>
> Usually, there are no compilation error
On sábado, 23 de fevereiro de 2013 09.40.09, David Narvaez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is anybody currently working on compatibility with GCC 4.8? I know
> that, at the moment, qtdelcarative (stable) can be built with GCC 4.8
> and qtbase (stable) cannot; and I'd like to know if anybody has a
> branch where t
Hi,
Is anybody currently working on compatibility with GCC 4.8? I know
that, at the moment, qtdelcarative (stable) can be built with GCC 4.8
and qtbase (stable) cannot; and I'd like to know if anybody has a
branch where this is being fixed.
David E. Narváez
___
16 matches
Mail list logo
