On 03/03/16 12:11, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 11:45 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>> On 29/02/16 10:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>> On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Can we have the "#pragma
On 03/03/2016 11:45 AM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 29/02/16 10:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi there,
Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5?
Patch found in https:/
On 29/02/16 10:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>> On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5?
>>>
>>> Patch found in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-1
On 15/02/16 10:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi there,
Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5?
Patch found in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01261.html
and was committed in r228794.
The same patch appli
On 18/01/16 11:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi there,
Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5?
Patch found in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01261.html
and was committed in r228794.
The same patch applies cleanly to gcc-5, which would otherwise not b
Hi there,
Can we have the "#pragma GCC pop_options" fix backported to GCC-5?
Patch found in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01261.html
and was committed in r228794.
The same patch applies cleanly to gcc-5, which would otherwise not be
able to use this pragma even though the sup
