On 25 Mar 2016, at 00:18, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> ...
It fails without
[Just a few notes related to some points in the exchange.]
powerpc and powerpc64 are in the same boat as mips and sparc for clang's
overall status: clang does not work yet, independent of any FreeBSD issues that
might exist if clang's code generation was okay. (See
On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> ...
>>> It fails without -std=c++11 (there's more discussion in that link and in
>>> PR 205453).
>>
>>
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
...
>> It fails without -std=c++11 (there's more discussion in that link and in
>> PR 205453).
>
> Yeah, I also commented on PR 205453 in the past, but I
On 3/24/2016 4:13 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> Well _Static_assert is C++11 and static_assert is C11.
Yes I have it backwards, same point though.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/24/2016 3:54 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for
On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it
On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
>> the c++11 standard quite
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11
>
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require
Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11
to build clang/libc++.
It seems to be the problem at
12 matches
Mail list logo