Hi
Still no one to complete this review ?
Thanks
On 07/10/2023 21:32, François Dumont wrote:
I've been told that previous patch generated with 'git diff -b' was
not applying properly so here is the same patch again with a simple
'git diff'.
On 07/10/2023 14:25, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
On 09/10/2023 16:42, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi François,
On 7 Oct 2023, at 20:32, François Dumont wrote:
I've been told that previous patch generated with 'git diff -b' was not
applying properly so here is the same patch again with a simple 'git diff'.
Thanks, that did fix it - There are some
> On 9 Oct 2023, at 15:42, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> On 7 Oct 2023, at 20:32, François Dumont wrote:
>>
>> I've been told that previous patch generated with 'git diff -b' was not
>> applying properly so here is the same patch again with a simple 'git diff'.
>
> Thanks, that did fix it - There
Hi François,
> On 7 Oct 2023, at 20:32, François Dumont wrote:
>
> I've been told that previous patch generated with 'git diff -b' was not
> applying properly so here is the same patch again with a simple 'git diff'.
Thanks, that did fix it - There are some training whitespaces in the config
I've been told that previous patch generated with 'git diff -b' was not
applying properly so here is the same patch again with a simple 'git diff'.
On 07/10/2023 14:25, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a rebased version of this patch.
There are few test failures when running 'make check-c++
Hi
Here is a rebased version of this patch.
There are few test failures when running 'make check-c++' but nothing new.
Still, there are 2 patches awaiting validation to fix some of them, PR
c++/111524 to fix another bunch and I fear that we will have to live
with the others.
libstdc++:
I've now prepared the patch to support following config:
--disable-libstdcxx-dual-abi --with-default-libstdcxx-abi=new
and so detected yet another problem with src/c++98/compatibility.cc. We
need basic_istream<>::ignore(streamsize) definitions that rely here but
not the rest of it.
François
Here is a rebased patch following the resize_and_overwrite change.
I confirm that tests are now fixed after the change in tzdb.cc.
I'll prepare a fix for those tests still but preparing also a test to
detect allocations in the lib.
François
On 17/08/2023 21:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 20:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 20:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 19:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:40, François Dumont
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 17/08/2023 19:22, Jonatha
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 20:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 19:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:40, François Dumont wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17/08/2023 19:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 14:27, François Dumont via Libst
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 19:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:40, François Dumont wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17/08/2023 19:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 14:27, François Dumont via Libstdc++
> > > wrote:
> > >> Here is the fixed patch tested in all 3 mode
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:40, François Dumont wrote:
>
>
> On 17/08/2023 19:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 14:27, François Dumont via Libstdc++
> > wrote:
> >> Here is the fixed patch tested in all 3 modes:
> >>
> >> - _GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI
> >>
> >> - !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_AB
On 17/08/2023 19:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 14:27, François Dumont via Libstdc++
wrote:
Here is the fixed patch tested in all 3 modes:
- _GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI
- !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && !_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
- !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
I do
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 14:27, François Dumont via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Here is the fixed patch tested in all 3 modes:
>
> - _GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI
>
> - !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && !_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
>
> - !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
>
> I don't know what you have in mind fo
Another fix to define __cow_string(const std::string&) in
cxx11-stdexcept.cc even if ! _GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI.
On 13/08/2023 21:51, François Dumont wrote:
Here is another version with enhanced sizeof/alignof static_assert in
string-inst.cc for the std::__cow_string definition from .
The asser
Here is another version with enhanced sizeof/alignof static_assert in
string-inst.cc for the std::__cow_string definition from .
The assertions in cow-stdexcept.cc are now checking the definition which
is in the same file.
On 13/08/2023 15:27, François Dumont wrote:
Here is the fixed patch t
Here is the fixed patch tested in all 3 modes:
- _GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI
- !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && !_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
- !_GLIBCXX_USE_DUAL_ABI && _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
I don't know what you have in mind for the change below but I wanted to
let you know that I tried to put COW std::basic
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023, 06:44 François Dumont via Libstdc++, <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> I hadn't tested the most basic default configuration and it is failing,
I did wonder about that when you said which configurations you had tested :)
> I need some more time yet.
>
OK, no problem.
I
I hadn't tested the most basic default configuration and it is failing,
I need some more time yet.
François
On 10/08/2023 07:13, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I've eventually completed this work.
This evolution will allow to build libstdc++ without dual abi and
using cxx11 abi. For the moment
19 matches
Mail list logo
