On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:41:09PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2025 15.28
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:53:14AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsof
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 06:28:16 -0800
Andre Muezerie wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:53:14AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, 18 January 2025 22.55
> > >
> > > It was a common pattern to have "GCC diagnostic ignor
> From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2025 15.28
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:53:14AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, 18 January 2025 22.55
> > >
> > > It was a c
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:53:14AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, 18 January 2025 22.55
> >
> > It was a common pattern to have "GCC diagnostic ignored" pragmas
> > sprinkled over the code and only activate these pragm
> From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 18 January 2025 22.55
>
> It was a common pattern to have "GCC diagnostic ignored" pragmas
> sprinkled over the code and only activate these pragmas for certain
> compilers (gcc and clang). Clang supports GCC's pragma f
5 matches
Mail list logo