Matt writes:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Matt writes:
>>
>>> Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
>>> implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
>>> --enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
>>> optio
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt writes:
Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
--enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
option would be to break up the enum valu
Matt writes:
> Yes, was I pasted was a local change. I was trying to eliminate the
> implicit cast to int from the enum type, which was causing my
> --enable-werror build to fail. At this point, I think the better
> option would be to break up the enum values into indivdual #defines
> and do a ty
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Matt writes:
I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx
doesn't bitrot too much. I ran into this issue, and an unsure how to
fix it without really ugly casting:
enum df_changeable_flags
df_set_flags (enum df_changeable_flag
NightStrike writes:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
>> trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
>
> Is that option regularly tested?
Probably not.
> Will it ever become the defa
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
> trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
Is that option regularly tested?
Will it ever become the default?
Matt writes:
> I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx
> doesn't bitrot too much. I ran into this issue, and an unsure how to
> fix it without really ugly casting:
>
> enum df_changeable_flags
> df_set_flags (enum df_changeable_flags changeable_flags)
> {
> enum df_c
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Matt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx doesn't
> bitrot too much.
Wasn't that branch already merged to trunk?
