When I compile GCC 10.5.0 from /pub/gcc/releases/gcc-10.5.0 and run
the resulting executable I get:
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not
On 7/8/23 14:37, Sidney Marshall wrote:
When I compile GCC 10.5.0 from /pub/gcc/releases/gcc-10.5.0 and run
the resulting executable I get:
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copyi
When I compile GCC 10.5.0 from /pub/gcc/releases/gcc-10.5.0 and run
the resulting executable I get:
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty;
I have been trying to make clangd work with my GCC-based builds (it's a
long story don't ask) and after a ton of effort (and, unfortunately,
some hacks due to clangd limitations) there is one thing left that's
causing a lot of spurious errors:
In gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/semaphore_base.h we f
On Jul 08 2023, Paul Smith wrote:
> Unfortunately because I am using limits.h from the clang intrinsics /
> resource directory (else many other things break), _POSIX_SEM_VALUE_MAX
> is not defined.
POSIX requires conforming implementations to define
_POSIX_SEM_VALUE_MAX.
> I can't quite figure o
On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 17:30 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> That needs to be sysconf (_SC_SEM_VALUE_MAX), and thus is not
> suitable for a constexpr.
Oh right, obviously.
Well, I guess I'll have to try to figure out why it's not defined.
Sigh.
Snapshot gcc-13-20230708 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20230708/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 12:33 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 17:30 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > That needs to be sysconf (_SC_SEM_VALUE_MAX), and thus is not
> > suitable for a constexpr.
>
> Oh right, obviously.
>
> Well, I guess I'll have to try to figure out why it's not de
