On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed. >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02340.html >> >> Can someone take a look? I'll commit the patch on Cesar's behalf if it's >> approved. > > Libstdc++ patches need to go to the libstdc++ list, which this did, in > a separate mail that broke the threading: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-10/msg00224.html > Then archives's inability to thread betweem months broke it again: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00113.html > > I approved it then withdrew that approval: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00120.html > then the patch got revised: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00122.html > > I'll have to refresh my memory about it.
I think I'm happiest with the second version of the patch, in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00114.html It does mean a change that might affect people using CXXFLAGS when running the tests, so we might want to update https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/test.html where it says "Or, just run the testsuites with CXXFLAGS set to -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG or -D_GLIBCXX_PARALLEL."