On 11/08/2012 10:54 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I figured I could commit this as obvious, so I did that in r193326.
Of course. Thanks again!
Paolo.
PS: as you may have noticed, I adjusted your new code to not throw,
instead abort when __EXCEPTIONS is not defined: in general, we want the
librar
On 11/06/2012 05:01 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/06/2012 04:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/05/2012 12:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
+// Avoid use of none-overridable new/delete operators in shared
Typo: that should be "non-overridable"
Jason
Thanks, this patch fixes both instances.
On 11/06/2012 04:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/05/2012 12:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
+// Avoid use of none-overridable new/delete operators in shared
Typo: that should be "non-overridable"
Jason
Thanks, this patch fixes both instances.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Tea
On 11/05/2012 12:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
+// Avoid use of none-overridable new/delete operators in shared
Typo: that should be "non-overridable"
Jason
On 11/02/2012 01:14 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 11/02/2012 01:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I looked at this again and made a new copy of the test case instead.
It has been successfully tested on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu.
Is this okay for trunk?
Looks very nice to me, and after all the issue s
On 11/02/2012 01:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I looked at this again and made a new copy of the test case instead.
It has been successfully tested on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu.
Is this okay for trunk?
Looks very nice to me, and after all the issue seems rather simple.
Let's say we wait another
On 10/30/2012 05:30 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 10/30/2012 05:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but
since I'm in CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a
full libstdc++ testcase you are extending a C++ testcase, in old-deja
On 10/30/2012 05:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in
CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase
you are extending a C++ testcase, in old-deja even, normally considered legacy.
AFAIK, th
Hi,
Florian Weimer ha scritto:
>Ping?
>
>Patch is at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01416.html
Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in
CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase
you are extending a C++ t
