Now fixed as trivial, I set you as author.
François
On 08/07/2025 13:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 11:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 at 14:03, François Dumont wrote:
On 01/07/2025 22:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 18:36, François Dumont
Ah sorry, a problem of last minute change.
I'll fix it if not done already.
On 08/07/2025 13:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 11:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 at 14:03, François Dumont wrote:
On 01/07/2025 22:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 11:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 at 14:03, François Dumont wrote:
> >
> > On 01/07/2025 22:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 18:36, François Dumont
> > > wrote:
> > >> I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new sym
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 at 14:03, François Dumont wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2025 22:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 18:36, François Dumont wrote:
> >> I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new symbols for
> >> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
> > I like this version much more th
On 01/07/2025 22:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 18:36, François Dumont wrote:
I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new symbols for
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
I like this version much more than the one trying to duplicate symbols with asm.
Here is the patch d
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 18:36, François Dumont wrote:
>
> I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new symbols for
> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
I like this version much more than the one trying to duplicate symbols with asm.
> Here is the patch doing this. It avoids to add many const_c
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 at 18:19, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Even if you have no time to review this for now could you only answer the
> question below that is to say:
>
> Should the current _GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION abi be preserved ?
No, that's not necessary
>
> Thanks
>
> On 16/06/2025 19:
Hi
Even if you have no time to review this for now could you only answer
the question below that is to say:
Should the current _GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION abi be preserved ?
Thanks
On 16/06/2025 19:36, François Dumont wrote:
I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new symbols
I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new symbols for
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
Here is the patch doing this. It avoids to add many const_cast which is
what we are trying to achieve here.
I've updated the PR keeping 2 commits so that if this last step is not
good I can just drop
Here is a new attempt preserving symbols.
libstdc++: Make debug iterator pointer sequence const [PR116369]
In revision a35dd276cbf6236e08bcf6e56e62c2be41cf6e3c the debug sequence
have been made mutable to allow attach iterators to const containers.
This change completes this fix
Ok, I'll give it another try.
Trying to use the same approach for targets using gnu.ver and others
thought, seems more reasonable to me.
François
On 22/05/2025 09:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025, 08:26 Jonathan Wakely, wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025, 06:26 François Dumo
On Thu, 15 May 2025, 06:26 François Dumont, wrote:
> Got
>
> On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont
> wrote:
> >> On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> Follo
On Thu, 22 May 2025, 08:26 Jonathan Wakely, wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2025, 06:26 François Dumont, wrote:
>
>> Got
>>
>> On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont
>> wrote:
>> >> On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> >>> On 31/03/2
Sending again because my previous reply got a weird 'Got' word as its
header that might be making it looks like a mistake.
On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, Fra
Got
On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Following this previous patch
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
> >> completed it for t
On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and
implemented the rest of the change to
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and
implemented the rest of the change to store the safe iterator sequence
as a point
Hi
As back to stage 1is it ok to commit this change ?
François
On 31/03/2025 22:20, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and
implemented the res
19 matches
Mail list logo
