2011/8/30 Paolo Carlini :
> On 08/30/2011 11:18 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pedro,
>
> Paolo
>>
>> The update of copyright date is ok.
>> The rest of the patch doesn't look right. Why you have here a stray
>> comma?
>
> Actually, *you* had wrong commas. Look closer.
>
> Paolo.
Yes, saw it now.
On 08/30/2011 11:18 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi Pedro,
Paolo
The update of copyright date is ok.
The rest of the patch doesn't look right. Why you have here a stray
comma?
Actually, *you* had wrong commas. Look closer.
Paolo.
Hi Pedro,
The update of copyright date is ok.
The rest of the patch doesn't look right. Why you have here a stray
comma? Why you remove here leading spaces for comments?
Kai
2011/8/30 Paolo Carlini :
> ... I committed the below because what we have now cannot possibly be right,
> can easily br
... I committed the below because what we have now cannot possibly be
right, can easily break the build. Please the target maintainers double
check the whole thing, test it.
Paolo.
//
2011-08-30 Paolo Carlini
* config/os/mingw32/error_constants.h: Fix commas
On 8/29/2011 4:50 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. also, you forgot to add 2011 to the Copyright years.
Paolo.
In the GNAT development environment we have an SVN style
checking filter, and this is one of the things it checks
for so we prevent any checkin missing the current year in
the copyright no
.. also, you forgot to add 2011 to the Copyright years.
Paolo.
On 08/29/2011 09:58 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
Done and added missing _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ for all checks. Committed at
revision 178257.
Something seems wrong here, in terms of commas:
too_many_links = EMLINK
//too_many_symbolic_link_levels = ELOOP,
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_EOVERFLOW
2011/8/29 Paolo Carlini :
> On 08/29/2011 10:54 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>> While these two didn't get the HAVE_... prefix. Was that intended?
>
> To be clear: make sure before committing that *all* use _GLIBCXX_HAVE_*
>
> Paolo.
Done and added missing _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ for all checks.
Committed at
On 08/29/2011 10:54 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
While these two didn't get the HAVE_... prefix. Was that intended?
To be clear: make sure before committing that *all* use _GLIBCXX_HAVE_*
Paolo.
On Sunday 28 August 2011 22:36:28, Kai Tietz wrote:
> +#ifdef HAVE_ENOSPC
> + no_space_on_device = ENOSPC,
> +#endif
>no_such_device = ENODEV,
> @@ -96,12 +100,18 @@
> -//not_supported = ENOTSUP,
> +#ifd
Hi,
Once more, I don't understand: didn't you suggest changing *only* ENOSPC
and EPERM? Why are we now discussing other error-numbers like ECHILD,
EAFNOSUPPORT and EBADMSG? Are the latter defined in errno.h?
should have written:
Once more, I don't understand: didn't you suggest changing *only*
2011/8/28 Paolo Carlini :
> Sorry,:
>>
>> Once more, I don't understand: didn't you suggest changing *only* ENOSPC
>> and EPERM? Why are we now discussing other error-numbers like ECHILD,
>> EAFNOSUPPORT and EBADMSG? Are the latter defined in errno.h?
>
> should have written:
>
> Once more, I don't
Sorry,:
Once more, I don't understand: didn't you suggest changing *only*
ENOSPC and EPERM? Why are we now discussing other error-numbers like
ECHILD, EAFNOSUPPORT and EBADMSG? Are the latter defined in errno.h?
should have written:
Once more, I don't understand: didn't you suggest changing *o
Hi,
Ah, now I got you. Hmm, well, I see here no advantage in adding
another macro to check for an macro. As in code of libstdc++ there is
actual no use for those new ones.
To be clear, I didn't personally invent those, but I'm still finding a
bit strange doing only for mingw something complete
2011/8/28 Paolo Carlini :
> On 08/28/2011 10:05 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2011/8/28 Paolo Carlini:
>>>
>>> Hi,
Hello,
this patch adds some errno values supported by newer runtime-version.
To keep backward compatibility
this patch checks for their definition before try
On 08/28/2011 10:05 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2011/8/28 Paolo Carlini:
Hi,
Hello,
this patch adds some errno values supported by newer runtime-version.
To keep backward compatibility
this patch checks for their definition before trying to use them.
Any particular reason for not using [GLIBCXX_CHEC
2011/8/28 Paolo Carlini :
> Hi,
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> this patch adds some errno values supported by newer runtime-version.
>> To keep backward compatibility
>> this patch checks for their definition before trying to use them.
>
> Any particular reason for not using [GLIBCXX_CHECK_SYSTEM_ERROR] for mi
Hi,
Hello,
this patch adds some errno values supported by newer runtime-version.
To keep backward compatibility
this patch checks for their definition before trying to use them.
Any particular reason for not using [GLIBCXX_CHECK_SYSTEM_ERROR] for
mingw too (by extending the list of checked syse
Hello,
this patch adds some errno values supported by newer runtime-version.
To keep backward compatibility
this patch checks for their definition before trying to use them.
Especially the EPERM error-number is required for having ISO-C++0x
std::thread support enabled with
winpthread libary for 32
19 matches
Mail list logo
