Hi Adam and Mateusz, >What's the point of checking minor versions on gcc 5 and 6? This isn't done >on earlier versions -- after the numbering was flattened, version 5 is >equivalent to 4.8 or 4.9.
I got FTBFS after gcc bumps, or something that broke. Doing this is "safer", even if probably not completely needed. >Thus, I understand refusing to build with an untested major version, but >FTBFSing on every point release is a bad idea. I prefer to stick to what upstream suggests/tests, specially when I have to deal with such a complicate package. I can upload a fix such as this one in a few seconds, so there is no big issue here (I would have uploaded it before, but I'm trying to fix an issue with vesa and guest additions). BTW I already sent the patch upstream some days ago https://www.virtualbox.org/pipermail/vbox-dev/2016-June/013884.html cheers, G.
