Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Mikael Morin wrote: >> Le 27/01/2014 02:56, Hans-Peter Nilsson a écrit : >> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Mikael Morin wrote: >> >> Le 18/01/2014 21:17, Mikael Morin a écrit : >> >>> Well, I guess that due to the touchy nature of the bug, there are >cases >> >>> that work by luck on old versions and fail (by unluck) on newer >ones. >> >>> Thus, I will backport in a few days to 4.8 and 4.7. >> >>> >> >> I added the following hardening to the patch on the 4.8 backport >> >> (http://gcc.gnu.org/r207117 and attached) and forward-ported it to >trunk >> >> (http://gcc.gnu.org/r207118) as well. >> >> 4.7 will come in an hour or so. >> > >> > Did you bootstrap & test the 4.7 backport? >> > >> Yes, works like a charm here. > >Huh, so we have C for cross-builds and C++ for bootstraps.
No, we use a C host compiler in both cases. Only stages 2 and 3 build with a C++ compiler. Richard. I >wish we could retire that difference *also* on the 4.7 branch >(using either C *or* C++ for *both* would be fine with me FWIW). >I believe we're now eperiencing more problems than benefits with >that difference, now that the migration is over. > >> > Looks like you committed C++ code there, in module.c: >> Alright; can you try the attached patch? > >Sorry, not at the moment, but I see Janus took care of that >(thanks) and it looks pretty obvious to me. It'll be noticed >when it's committed... > >brgds, H-P
