At 1374177225 seconds past the Epoch, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Josh Magee > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This issue introduced a C++ ABI difference between 3.1 and 3.2 which > > affected > > how tail padding was re-used when compiling in C++11 mode. The proposed > > patch > > would fix the ABI, but this means there would be an ABI difference between > > 3.3 > > and 3.4. I think a change like this would warrant a mention in the release > > notes. Should I include a patch that updates the release notes? What is > > the > > procedure in this type of situation? > > It's probably worth adding a comment to the release notes, but not > anything beyond that.
I will send a new patch that includes a comment in the release notes. > If you're changing the test to use C++11, you might as well use the > real static_assert instead of the "SA" macro. I added a new run line for C++11 but did not change the previous run line, so the test will get run once in C++98 mode and again in C++11. The results of the test should be the same in both dialects so I wanted to run the test in each mode to verify it. I will add an explicit -std=c++98 to the first run line to make the distinction clear. I could still change the test to conditionally use real static_asserts only in C++11 mode, but in this case it seemed better to use a construct that works in both language modes. - Josh _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
