On 04/30/13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:23:49AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I've updated the webpage.
Perhaps it would be nice if we had some testsuite coverage for it too,
right now unless I'm blind there are exactly 2 testcases, using one 0b...
number in each in g+
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:23:49AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I've updated the webpage.
Perhaps it would be nice if we had some testsuite coverage for it too,
right now unless I'm blind there are exactly 2 testcases, using one 0b...
number in each in g++.dg/.
At least port gcc.dg/binary-consta
I've updated the webpage.
Jason
The patch looks good to me.
Jason
On 04/27/2013 02:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:03:17AM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
In htdocs/projects/cxx1y.html it says no for support of binary
literals. I think that's a Yes actually.
Here is a little patchlet.
Am I missing something?
So yes... ;-) I had tested
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:03:17AM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> In htdocs/projects/cxx1y.html it says no for support of binary
> literals. I think that's a Yes actually.
>
> Here is a little patchlet.
>
> Am I missing something?
Given
./xg++ -B ./ a.C -std=c++1y -pedantic-errors -S
a.C:1:9:
In htdocs/projects/cxx1y.html it says no for support of binary
literals. I think that's a Yes actually.
Here is a little patchlet.
Am I missing something?
Index: htdocs/projects/cxx1y.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/pr
