On 22/03/16 20:38 +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 22.03.2016 20:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22/03/16 18:29 +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes. Maybe changing concept_check.h would be better, because
I see 3 different instances of bits/c++config.h:
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/fp
On 22.03.2016 20:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/03/16 18:29 +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Yes. Maybe changing concept_check.h would be better, because
>> I see 3 different instances of bits/c++config.h:
>>
>> $prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/fpu/bits/c++config.h
>> $prefix/arm-eabi
On 22/03/16 18:29 +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes. Maybe changing concept_check.h would be better, because
I see 3 different instances of bits/c++config.h:
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/fpu/bits/c++config.h
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/bits/c++config.h
$prefix/arm-e
On 22.03.2016 15:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/03/16 07:10 +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am pinging for this patch, which addresses an admittedly minor
>> regression
>> for free-standing libstdc++ due to changed c++11 default settings.
>> The proposed
>> patch does only change th
On 22/03/16 07:10 +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
I am pinging for this patch, which addresses an admittedly minor regression
for free-standing libstdc++ due to changed c++11 default settings. The proposed
patch does only change the free-standing install rule, and has therefore no
impact
on o
Hi,
I am pinging for this patch, which addresses an admittedly minor regression
for free-standing libstdc++ due to changed c++11 default settings. The proposed
patch does only change the free-standing install rule, and has therefore no
impact
on other configurations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/lib
