Hi all,

On 10-03-2019 13:41, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 11:00:40 -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
>> I'm not familiar with the library in question but the problem
>> appears to be specific to these __atomic_xyz builtins which seem
>> to get special treatment in g++.  Other builtins I tested do not
>> exhibit such failures.
> Retitling to reflect the scope of the bug.

Does anybody know why gcc got more picky, but ONLY for __atomic_foo?

If it is only __atomic_foo that is failing, can't we special case that?
I.e. if testing for __atomic_foo, pass the test? Maybe only in Debian
and not upstream, albeit I rather have a generic solution, but then it
shouldn't be Debian pulling the boat.

Or is this a ridiculous proposal?

I fear that although this may have limited impact on packages in the
archive, I don't know how many private builds are impacted by this.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to