On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> It is true that we typically don't care about old kernels.
Please note that 2.6.32 is still supported longterm release, not to
mention that CentOS 5.x will be still supported for the next three
years. gcc doesn't specify required ke
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:29:07AM -0800, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> +gcc-patches
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
> > I am opposed to this change.
> > Upstream code builds with -std=c++11.
> > Building this code here with another set of options is a time b
It is true that we typically don't care about old kernels.
Those who care about older kernels are welcome to submit patches upstream --
I don't think we ever rejected a reasonable patch that does not
significantly increase our maintenance headache.
Using -std=gnu++ for building these sources in GCC
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> +gcc-patches
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>>> I am opposed to this change.
>>> Upstream code builds with -std=c++11.
>>> Buildin
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> +gcc-patches
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> I am opposed to this change.
>> Upstream code builds with -std=c++11.
>> Building this code here with another set of options is a time bomb.
Then
+gcc-patches
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> I am opposed to this change.
> Upstream code builds with -std=c++11.
> Building this code here with another set of options is a time bomb.
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:23 AM, wrote:
>> Author: uros
>> Date: Fri Nov 1
