On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 04:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>> FWIW, this one isn't from #pragma poison, it's from:
>> #define abort() fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__)
>>
>> (I messed up the --in-reply-to when posting the patch, but Gerald n
On 10/23/2017 04:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> FWIW, this one isn't from #pragma poison, it's from:
> #define abort() fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__)
>
> (I messed up the --in-reply-to when posting the patch, but Gerald noted
> the issue was due to:
> /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
> FWIW, this one isn't from #pragma poison, it's from:
> #define abort() fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__)
>
> (I messed up the --in-reply-to when posting the patch, but Gerald noted
> the issue was due to:
> /usr/include/c++/v1/typein
On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 16:40 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 04:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 23/10/17 17:07 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > I guess so. But we have to make gdb happy as well. It really
> > >
On 10/23/2017 04:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/10/17 17:07 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> I guess so. But we have to make gdb happy as well. It really depends how
>>> much each TU grows with the extra (unneeded) include grows in C++
On 23/10/17 17:07 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
I guess so. But we have to make gdb happy as well. It really depends how
much each TU grows with the extra (unneeded) include grows in C++11 and
C++04 mode.
The c++ headers unconditionally included fr
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> I guess so. But we have to make gdb happy as well. It really depends how
> much each TU grows with the extra (unneeded) include grows in C++11 and
> C++04 mode.
The c++ headers unconditionally included from system.h, with:
% echo '#include <$na
On October 23, 2017 4:15:17 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm
wrote:
>On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 15:51 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 09:28 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
>> >
On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 15:51 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 09:28 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > > In file included from /scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-
> > > > > HEAD/gc
On 10/23/2017 02:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> OK for trunk?
>
> Not entirely happy as unique-ptr.h doesn't use but well.
>
Actually it does. It's needed in C++11 mode, because that's
where std::unique_ptr is defined:
#if __cplusplus
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 09:28 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > > In file included from /scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/unique-
>> > > ptr-tests.cc:23:
>> > > In file included from /scratch/tmp/gera
On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 09:28 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > In file included from /scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/unique-
> > > ptr-tests.cc:23:
> > > In file included from /scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-
> > > HEAD/gcc/../include/unique-ptr.h:77:
> > > In f
12 matches
Mail list logo
