On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:54:05 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
So ... Any oks for this diff?
Index: os_defines.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/gnu/gcc/libstdc++-v3/config/os/bsd/openbsd/os_defines.h,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:06:19 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:54:05 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:06:19 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
I still think this should be investigated deeper. Matthew did a bit
of digging jusdging from:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=129783295016631w=2
That raises the question what difference
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
I still think this should be investigated deeper. Matthew did a bit
of digging jusdging from:
oups include the list this time sorry for the noise Pascal.
On 12 December 2011 16:00, Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:18:40 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
I still
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary.
Apparently, clang++ interprets restrict as parameter name, i.e.:
attr.cc:1:50: error: redefinition
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0100, Mathieu - wrote:
restrict is a C99 keyword and has no meaning (ie doesn't exist) in the
C++ standard.
Wrong answer. What's the C++ standard ? C++98 or C++2011 ?
A lot of things that are valid C++ don't exist in any C++ standard,
since they're included
On 12 December 2011 16:28, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0100, Mathieu - wrote:
restrict is a C99 keyword and has no meaning (ie doesn't exist) in the
C++ standard.
Wrong answer. What's the C++ standard ? C++98 or C++2011 ?
A lot of things that are
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary.
Apparently, clang++ interprets restrict
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
The
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Mon,
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=130229126704450w=2
I don't expect any fallout, but just to be sure, can
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:37:29 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:43:02 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:37:29 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=130229126704450w=2
I don't expect any
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:00:57 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:06:40 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:00:57 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:06:24 +0100
From: Pascal Stumpf pascal.stu...@cubes.de
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Mark Kettenis mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hard to tell if you don't explain what the problem is,
The problem is clang++ is stricter about C and C++ rules than GCC is.
E.g., it doesn't like conflicting prototypes, whereas GCC will happily
ignore them in certain
Hi,
this diff was already suggested by matthew@ some time ago. It renders
clang++ usable with gcc's C++ include files, see:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=130229126704450w=2
I don't expect any fallout, but just to be sure, can this go through a
bulk build on affected platforms (gcc4)?
21 matches
Mail list logo
