On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 02:47, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 8/28/24 6:22 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 8/28/24 6:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8/28/24 5:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:54, Jason
On 8/28/24 6:22 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/28/24 6:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/28/24 5:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Redefining that m
On 8/28/24 6:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/28/24 5:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Redefining that macro to invalidate PCH is a bit of a hack,
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 8/28/24 5:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>
> >> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
> >
> > Redefining that macro to invalidate PCH is a bit of a hack, but it's
> > what we have
On 8/28/24 5:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Redefining that macro to invalidate PCH is a bit of a hack, but it's
what we have for now, so OK for trunk, thanks.
If it's just to invalidate PCH, do we w
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 10:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Redefining that macro to invalidate PCH is a bit of a hack, but it's
what we have for now, so OK for trunk, thanks.
>
> -- 8< --
>
> testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp defines __GLIBCXX__ to 999; avoid
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
-- 8< --
testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp defines __GLIBCXX__ to 999; avoid a macro
redefinition warning in that case.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/c++config: Avoid redefining __GLIBCXX__.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config | 2 +
