On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Personally I *like* it when a new release identifies portability
> problems such as missing includes. I consider it an advantage,
> and an improvement in the compiler.
That's a valid approach from a technology perspective. From a
customer/user pers
On 18 August 2011 10:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
>>> gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
>>> etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
>> This isn't the first time the
On 18 August 2011 11:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 11:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Pfeifer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include" from
> gthr-posix.h
On 08/18/2011 11:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include" from
gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
etc.) that implicit
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
>>> gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
>>> etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
>> This isn't the firs
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
>> gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
>> etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
> This isn't the first time the libstdc++ headers were cleaned up, and
> each time
