On 12/8/2015 4:26 PM, Frédéric Buclin wrote:
> Le 08. 12. 15 14:16, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
>>> Dropping it is ok I think.
>>
>> Yes, even for the valid "enhancement" cases a maintainer who triages
>> the report could set that easily enough.
>
> If maintainers still use the severity field to tri
On 1/31/2015 02:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 30 January 2015 at 21:39, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>> pins...@gmail.com writes:
>>> No because they are c++ code so capital C is correct.
>>
>> However, we should avoid relying on case-sensitive file systems
>> (Windows) and use .cc or .cxx for C++ files
On 4/15/2015 10:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders
> wrote:
> I don't buy this kind of argument given that the switch to C++ has
> complicated things instead of simplifying them.
I've written before about how problematic having c++ files with .c
extensio
Hi Guys,
I guess back in July, the release of 8.3 was expected by the end of
2018. Now it's February. Is the next release of the 8 series imminent?
if not, any idea when it might come?
Thanks,
John
On 7/7/2017 17:38, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I see large numbers of timeouts in Ada tests on trunk in parallel
run s (make -j96) on x86_64. Messages like the one below appear
in the logs, suggesting some sort of heap corruption. I'm having
trouble reproducing it outside the rest of the test suite (i
This Ada 2012 amendment titled "Calling Unchecked Deallocation is
illegal for zero-sized pools" has been implemented in GCC 4.6.0 recently
(ada/sem_intr.adb). However, the restriction is enforced even when
-gnat2005 (or -gnat95) switched are explicitly passed to gcc.
Shouldn't this check onl
obert Dewar wrote:
On 10/28/2010 9:37 AM, John Marino wrote:
This Ada 2012 amendment titled "Calling Unchecked Deallocation is
illegal for zero-sized pools" has been implemented in GCC 4.6.0 recently
(ada/sem_intr.adb). However, the restriction is enforced even when
-gnat2005 (or -
On 4/16/2014 03:22, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
>> On 04/14/2014 02:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> No I considered that but I think that number will be very small. Will you
>> concede, in hindsight, that it would be better had the name bee
On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd say simply go ahead.
Note that i386-freebsd is still listed as primary arch
On 12/13/2012 12:38, David Brown wrote:
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD h
On 12/13/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On 12/13/2012 13:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He al
12 matches
Mail list logo
