On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:44:45PM +0200, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:57 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > > Sorry for digging up this thread, but since this is a recurring change
> > > it appears that the mass rebuild is not enough by itself. As of today
> > > lcov doesn't
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:57 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Sorry for digging up this thread, but since this is a recurring change
> > it appears that the mass rebuild is not enough by itself. As of today
> > lcov doesn't work with GCC 9.x [1] and it would be nice if either:
> >
> > - gcc provided
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:42:16PM +0200, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:30 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:02:22AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > This is already happening, gcc was updated, I see bugs for gcc 9 related
> > > FTBFS being open.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:30 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:02:22AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > This is already happening, gcc was updated, I see bugs for gcc 9 related
> > FTBFS being open. This is not a proper way to coordinate this kind of thing.
>
> I'm sorry, I
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:22:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:12:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:04:25PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > The variable was already initialized right at the start. The compound
> > > literal is
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:12:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:04:25PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > The variable was already initialized right at the start. The compound
> > literal is just a short-hand for later changing the values in several
> > fields of the
* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:51:25PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> Libvirt has hit a problem with -Wjump-misses-init newly reporting bogus
>> warnings for code using anonymous struct initializers during assignments:
>>
>>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:04:25PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> The variable was already initialized right at the start. The compound
> literal is just a short-hand for later changing the values in several
> fields of the struct at once. This is no different to manually assigning
> new
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:56:19PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:51:25PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > Libvirt has hit a problem with -Wjump-misses-init newly reporting bogus
> > warnings for code using anonymous struct initializers during assignments:
> >
> >
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:51:25PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Libvirt has hit a problem with -Wjump-misses-init newly reporting bogus
> warnings for code using anonymous struct initializers during assignments:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
>
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:16:56PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> [This proposal was submitted after the deadline. I am announcing it
> for community discussion and will leave the decision on whether or not
> to grant an exception to FESCo]
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GCC9
>
> ==
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 07:07:02AM -0500, Siteshwar Vashisht wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jakub Jelinek"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:51:32 PM
> >
- Original Message -
> From: "Jakub Jelinek"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:51:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Late] F30 System-Wide Change proposal: GCC9
>
> The release notes are WIP, mo
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 21:27, Ben Cotton wrote:
[..]
> == User Experience ==
> Users will be able to see compiled code improvements and use the newly
> added features.
> Developers will notice a newer compiler, and might need to adjust
> their codebases acording to
Thank you two for the answer.
YOUNG, MICHAEL A. wrote on Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:53:18PM +:
> The problem is your gcc build requires libgcc_s.so.1 which is the i386
> version; the x86_64 version is libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) . So something has
> gone wrong in your build process.
Eh, even after
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely wrote on Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 05:06:09PM +:
>>> I think it would help having more people test things, and if there are
>>> build failures would help package owners fix these - it's not always
>>> obvious to fix a build failure
Jonathan Wakely wrote on Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 05:06:09PM +:
>> I think it would help having more people test things, and if there are
>> build failures would help package owners fix these - it's not always
>> obvious to fix a build failure by repeatedly submitting a new package to
>> build,
On 22/01/19 08:52 +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote:
Hi,
Ben Cotton wrote on Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:16:56PM -0500:
== Detailed Description ==
GCC 9 is currently in stage4 since January 7th, in prerelease state
with only regression bugfixes and documentation fixes allowed. The
release will
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:35 PM Martin Kolman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 08:21 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, I forgot to create the every year feature request for GCC this
> > > year and only realized that
On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 08:21 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I forgot to create the every year feature request for GCC this
> > year and only realized that when I've successfully built first non-scratch
> > gcc 9 rpms. I
On ti, 22 tammi 2019, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I'm sorry, I forgot to create the every year feature request for GCC this
year and only realized that when I've successfully built first non-scratch
gcc 9 rpms. I believe Carlos has been
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'm sorry, I forgot to create the every year feature request for GCC this
> year and only realized that when I've successfully built first non-scratch
> gcc 9 rpms. I believe Carlos has been mentioning GCC when F30 mass rebuild
>
On 22. 01. 19 10:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:02:22AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
This is already happening, gcc was updated, I see bugs for gcc 9 related
FTBFS being open. This is not a proper way to coordinate this kind of thing.
I'm sorry, I forgot to create the every
Am Montag, den 21.01.2019, 15:16 -0500 schrieb Ben Cotton:
> * Proposal owners:
> Build gcc in f30, rebuild packages that have direct dependencies on
> exact gcc version (libtool, annobin, gcc-python-plugin).
Did not happen. Rawhide buildroot was broken yesterday around 9:50 UTC.
I was doing the
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:02:22AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> This is already happening, gcc was updated, I see bugs for gcc 9 related
> FTBFS being open. This is not a proper way to coordinate this kind of thing.
I'm sorry, I forgot to create the every year feature request for GCC this
year
On 21. 01. 19 23:42, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:38 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
I think we want this to go through. The new version is already packaged and
I know some work has been done to resolve compilation failures. There's
still plenty of time to resolve the
Hi,
Ben Cotton wrote on Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:16:56PM -0500:
> == Detailed Description ==
> GCC 9 is currently in stage4 since January 7th, in prerelease state
> with only regression bugfixes and documentation fixes allowed. The
> release will happen probably in the middle of April.
> rpms
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:38 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> I think we want this to go through. The new version is already packaged and
> I know some work has been done to resolve compilation failures. There's
> still plenty of time to resolve the remaining issues.
>
I agree, mostly
On 21. 01. 19 21:16, Ben Cotton wrote:
[This proposal was submitted after the deadline. I am announcing it
for community discussion and will leave the decision on whether or not
to grant an exception to FESCo]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GCC9
== Summary ==
Switch GCC in Fedora 30 to
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:36:51PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I certainly would be very disappointed to not see the latest release
> of gcc in Fedora. The release notes are underwhelming, but I expect
> there are many improvements to look forward to. For example, I know
> there
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:27:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:17 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > [This proposal was submitted after the deadline. I am announcing it
> > for community discussion and will leave the decision on whether or not
> > to grant an exception to
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:17 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> [This proposal was submitted after the deadline. I am announcing it
> for community discussion and will leave the decision on whether or not
> to grant an exception to FESCo]
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GCC9
>
> == Summary ==
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
