hWell, it might be the only target that has warnings because of that,
but from a quick look it seems like any target that uses avr-stdint.h or
newlib-stdint.h could theoretically have null values for those macros.
Without a bit of digging I'm not sure how much of that is real and how
much is co
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:53:20PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 11:58 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:39:24 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>On 12/17/2015 11:34 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:05:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 03:46
On 12/17/2015 11:58 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:39:24 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/17/2015 11:34 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:05:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/16/2015 03:46 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Shall I bisect one of the cases anew, with
On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:39:24 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 11:34 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:05:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2015 03:46 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > > > Shall I bisect one of the cases anew, with the "Test value of
> > > > _GLIBCX
On 12/17/2015 11:34 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:05:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/16/2015 03:46 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Shall I bisect one of the cases anew, with the "Test value of
_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_WCHAR not whether it is defined" patch that
uncovered it, applied?
On Thu, 2015-12-17 11:05:42 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 03:46 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > Shall I bisect one of the cases anew, with the "Test value of
> > _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_WCHAR not whether it is defined" patch that
> > uncovered it, applied? Starting with some arbitrary old revis
