On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:54:05 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> So ... Any oks for this diff?
>
>
> Index: os_defines.h
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/gnu/gcc/libstdc++-v3/config/os/bsd/openbsd/os_defines.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:54:05 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:06:19 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
> > > > From: Pascal Stumpf
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 12 De
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:06:19 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
> > > From: Pascal Stumpf
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
>> > From: Pascal Stumpf
>> >
>> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
> > From: Pascal Stumpf
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The s/restrict/__restri
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > >
> > > The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary.
> >
> > Apparently, clang++ interpret
On 12 December 2011 16:28, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0100, Mathieu - wrote:
>> restrict is a C99 keyword and has no meaning (ie doesn't exist) in the
>> C++ standard.
>
> Wrong answer. What's the C++ standard ? C++98 or C++2011 ?
>
> A lot of things that are valid C++
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0100, Mathieu - wrote:
> restrict is a C99 keyword and has no meaning (ie doesn't exist) in the
> C++ standard.
Wrong answer. What's the C++ standard ? C++98 or C++2011 ?
A lot of things that are valid C++ don't exist in any C++ standard,
since they're include
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary.
>
> Apparently, clang++ interprets "restrict" as parameter name, i.e.:
>
> attr.cc:1:50: error: re
oups include the list this time sorry for the noise Pascal.
On 12 December 2011 16:00, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
>> > From: Pascal Stumpf
>> >
>> > > I still think this should be investigated
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
> > From: Pascal Stumpf
> >
> > > I still think this should be investigated deeper. Matthew did a bit
> > > of digging jusdging from:
> > >
> > >http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=12978
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf
>
> > I still think this should be investigated deeper. Matthew did a bit
> > of digging jusdging from:
> >
> >http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=129783295016631&w=2
> >
> > That raises the question what difference between the
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:43:02 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:37:29 +0100
> > From: Pascal Stumpf
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
> > > clang++ u
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:37:29 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > Hi,
> > this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
> > clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> Hi,
> this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
> clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=130229126704450&w=2
>
> I don't expect any fallout, but just to be sur
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Hard to tell if you don't explain what the problem is,
The problem is clang++ is stricter about C and C++ rules than GCC is.
E.g., it doesn't like conflicting prototypes, whereas GCC will happily
ignore them in certain cases. See
http://mar
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:06:40 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf
>
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:00:57 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100
> > > From: Pascal Stumpf
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
>
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:00:57 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100
> > From: Pascal Stumpf
> >
> > Hi,
> > this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
> > clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
> >
> > http://marc.info/
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100
> From: Pascal Stumpf
>
> Hi,
> this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
> clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=130229126704450&w=2
>
> I don't expect any fallout, but just
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=130229126704450&w=2
I don't expect any fallout, but just to be sure, can this go through a
bulk build on affected platforms (gcc4)?
In
21 matches
Mail list logo
