Problem was caused by skewed repos checked out with old (now broken) conventions.
David On 2014-10-17, at 12:45 AM, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > Changes to fdlibm code should be review on core-libs-dev rather than > build-dev. > > However, given the nature of the code, I am not inclined to approach changes > to fdlibm to work around new C compiler warnings. > > -Joe > > On 10/16/2014 6:08 PM, David Chase wrote: >> I am more competent at modifying FP source code than I am at tinkering with >> flags in our build system. >> If someone else is solving the problem, they might choose what works best >> for them, I am glad if that happens. >> But till something happens, I am (very) build-impaired, or I can just make >> all my changes to a downrev >> version of the source and hope that the patches apply. >> >> David >> >> On 2014-10-16, at 6:20 PM, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> I think it is more appropriate to look to compile fdlibm with a different >>> set of flags, as has been done in at least previous iterations of the build >>> system. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -Joe >>> >>> On 10/16/2014 2:37 PM, David Chase wrote: >>>> Rhetorical question, actually — someone clearly did. >>>> Someone also did not test it with gcc 4.8.recent on Ubuntu 14 or >>>> Clang.current on Mavericks. >>>> >>>> One of the offending directories is fdlibm, and I have experience with >>>> that, so since I can’t >>>> get anything else done, I will see about cleaning up that code. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >
