On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:31:55PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Any progress of this bug?
> It blocks some packages in to build for mips64el port.
I'm part way through upgrading to the latest upstream version.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:10:09 -0600 Brett Johnson wrote:
> On 08/13/2015 09:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Who would I submit a patch for the packaging to?!
>
> Lol. Sorry, I didn't notice you were the maintainer ;)
Any progress of this bug?
It blocks some packages in to build for mips64el port.
>
On 08/13/2015 09:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> Who would I submit a patch for the packaging to?!
Lol. Sorry, I didn't notice you were the maintainer ;)
--
Brett Johnson
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:39:09AM -0600, Brett Johnson wrote:
> I agree that it would be better to make the change in the packaging,
> rather than in configure.in. If you've already done this, would you
> mind submitting a patch?
Who would I submit a patch for the packaging to?!
signature.asc
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:33:36AM -0400, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Mark Brown [2015-08-13 12:51]:
> > > gcc5 changes the semantics of inline function declarations, causing some
> > > inline functions in xemacs to be considered "extern", and thus cause
> > In what way does it change the semanti
On 08/13/2015 05:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:57:40PM -0600, Brett Johnson wrote:
>
>> gcc5 changes the semantics of inline function declarations, causing some
>> inline functions in xemacs to be considered "extern", and thus cause
>
> In what way does it change the seman
* Mark Brown [2015-08-13 12:51]:
> > gcc5 changes the semantics of inline function declarations, causing some
> > inline functions in xemacs to be considered "extern", and thus cause
>
> In what way does it change the semantics - this seems like a very
> surprising and counterintuitive thing to d
tag 778180 - patch
kthxbye
> --- xemacs21-21.4.22.orig/configure.in
> +++ xemacs21-21.4.22/configure.in
> @@ -1941,6 +1941,8 @@ if test "$cflags_specified" = "no"; then
> CFLAGS="-g -O3 -Wall -Wno-switch -Winline -Wmissing-prototypes"
> dnl Yuck, bad compares have been worth at least 3 c
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:57:40PM -0600, Brett Johnson wrote:
> gcc5 changes the semantics of inline function declarations, causing some
> inline functions in xemacs to be considered "extern", and thus cause
In what way does it change the semantics - this seems like a very
surprising and counter
tags 778180 +patch
thanks
The stddef.h header defines max_align_t conditional on the definition
of __STDC_VERSION__, so in gcc5, this type is defined in stddef.h,
where for older versions of gcc it was not.
Note that applying this patch makes visible other gcc5 problems with
new inline function s
10 matches
Mail list logo
