https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b6ebc025cf2b25fdc1e8f6e6261701dc71bac74
commit r11-7464-g8b6ebc025cf2b25fdc1e8f6e6261701dc71bac74
Author: Mikael Pettersson
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like the fix was approved here
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/564929.html but not yet
committed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> > Kludge to work around configure breakage. Not pretty, but at least it lets
> > bootstrap w/ Ada succeed on Cygwin.
>
> OK, let's go for this. Can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Kludge to work around configure breakage. Not pretty, but at least it lets
> bootstrap w/ Ada succeed on Cygwin.
OK, let's go for this. Can you post it on the gcc-patches@ mailing list?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Created attachment 49925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49925=edit
ensure fileno_unlocked() is visible on Cygwin
Kludge to work around configure breakage. Not pretty, but at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not really a penalization, the -std= is (supposed to be) added only
during bootstraps for stage1, so if one builds a cross-compiler or
non-bootstrapped compiler, it isn't added and nobody is penalized,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm here with Richard, by using -std=c++11 for stage1 we get (at least to
> some extent) verification that we aren't relying on GNU extensions and can
> use other host compilers. Of course, further stages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But we do not require a GNU C++11 host compiler but a C++11 host compiler so
> at least for stage1 (as the description depicts) -std=c++11 is what we want
> (to fend off GNU dialect usage).
IMO that's ill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
--- Comment #4 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Created attachment 49915
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49915=edit
preprocessed output with -dM -E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Created attachment 49914
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49914=edit
preprocessed source for failing cstreams.c
14 matches
Mail list logo
