On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/27/2014 11:04 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
Ok to backport r210653 (fix for PR58930) to gcc-4_9-branch?
OK, yes.
Thanks. Committed attached patch as r212207.
Tested on Linux/x86_64, no regressions.
--
Paul
Hi,
On 07/01/2014 08:49 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template11.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template11.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template11.C
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
If this is what you actually committed
Yes.
something went wrong with the testcases...
Thanks. The patch applied twice, causing doubling of the test :-(
Now I have to see how that didn't cause new failures ...
Greetings,
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:18 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
The patch isn't trivial but I understand that it fixes quite a
On 06/27/2014 11:04 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
Ok to backport r210653 (fix for PR58930) to gcc-4_9-branch?
OK, yes.
Jason
