On 07/02/17 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
vegastrike-0.5.1-27.r1.fc24.src.rpm
error: request for member ... in ...
Looks like '.' is used instead of '->', so invalid C++.
Reported upstream and fixed.
___
devel mailing list -- devel
On 16 February 2017 at 07:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> libffado has more of these stupid errors that have affected dozens of
> packages because [expletives deleted]:
>
> src/libieee1394/configrom.cpp: In member function 'bool
> ConfigRom::initialize()':
> src/libieee1394/configrom.cpp:179:31: error
On 16.02.2017 13:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/02/17 10:15 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/02/17 22:53 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 15 February 2017 at 09:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
A mockchain build of dbus-c++ libffado and sflphone works with this
patch. repoquery says nothing els
On 16/02/17 10:15 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/02/17 22:53 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 15 February 2017 at 09:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
A mockchain build of dbus-c++ libffado and sflphone works with this
patch. repoquery says nothing else depends on dbus-c++.
Any objections to me co
On 15/02/17 22:53 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 15 February 2017 at 09:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
A mockchain build of dbus-c++ libffado and sflphone works with this
patch. repoquery says nothing else depends on dbus-c++.
Any objections to me committing the patch to dbus-c++ and rebuilding it?
On 15 February 2017 at 09:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> A mockchain build of dbus-c++ libffado and sflphone works with this
> patch. repoquery says nothing else depends on dbus-c++.
>
> Any objections to me committing the patch to dbus-c++ and rebuilding it?
>
> Somebody should also fork dbus-c++ to
On 15/02/17 13:50 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/02/17 12:32 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/02/17 11:30 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/02/17 21:42 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 7 February 2017 at 16:32, Marek Polacek wrote:
libffado-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
sflphone-1.4.1-20.fc26
On 15/02/17 12:32 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/02/17 11:30 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/02/17 21:42 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 7 February 2017 at 16:32, Marek Polacek wrote:
libffado-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
sflphone-1.4.1-20.fc26.src.rpm
error: no matching function for ca
On 15/02/17 11:30 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/02/17 21:42 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 7 February 2017 at 16:32, Marek Polacek wrote:
libffado-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
sflphone-1.4.1-20.fc26.src.rpm
error: no matching function for call to ...
Invalid code.
I am 99% sure t
On 14/02/17 21:42 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 7 February 2017 at 16:32, Marek Polacek wrote:
libffado-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
sflphone-1.4.1-20.fc26.src.rpm
error: no matching function for call to ...
Invalid code.
I am 99% sure that these 2 errors are due to a bug in dbus-c++
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:42:53PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 16:32, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > libffado-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
> > sflphone-1.4.1-20.fc26.src.rpm
> > error: no matching function for call to ...
> > Invalid code.
>
> I am 99% sure that these 2
On 7 February 2017 at 16:32, Marek Polacek wrote:
> libffado-2.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
> sflphone-1.4.1-20.fc26.src.rpm
> error: no matching function for call to ...
> Invalid code.
I am 99% sure that these 2 errors are due to a bug in dbus-c++. Is the
new compiler attempting to compil
Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:32:09 +0100
schrieb Marek Polacek :
> codeblocks-16.01-2.fc26.src.rpm
...
> there are no arguments to .. that depend on a template
> parameter, so a declaration of ... must be available
> This code is ill-formed and G++ now rejects such code.
Fixed and rebuild on F
On 08/02/17 13:11 +0100, Marek Skalický wrote:
Marek Polacek píše v Út 07. 02. 2017 v 22:32 +0100:
It's been a tradition now that every January we rebuild all the
Fedora packages
with the upcoming GCC, to reveal as many bugs as possible before we
release
the new version. This year is no differe
On 08/02/17 08:42 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:59:33PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 07/02/17 23:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > some C++ FE chang
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:11:32PM +0100, Marek Skalický wrote:
> Marek Polacek píše v Út 07. 02. 2017 v 22:32 +0100:
> > It's been a tradition now that every January we rebuild all the
> > Fedora packages
> > with the upcoming GCC, to reveal as many bugs as possible before we
> > release
> > the n
Marek Polacek píše v Út 07. 02. 2017 v 22:32 +0100:
> It's been a tradition now that every January we rebuild all the
> Fedora packages
> with the upcoming GCC, to reveal as many bugs as possible before we
> release
> the new version. This year is no different.
>
> There were 18811 packages overa
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:59:33PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 07/02/17 23:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:32:09PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> ocp-0.1.22-0.10.git849cc42.fc26.src.rpm
> These are not ready for a new gcc version (gcc -dumpversion says '7'
> and not e.g. '6.3.1') and the packages fail to cope with that.
Fixed, thanks.
__
On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 19:19 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 19:14, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 18:56 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > On Te
On 08/02/17 00:14, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 18:56 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
and the current instant
On 7 February 2017 at 18:59, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 07/02/17 23:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
an
On 7 February 2017 at 19:14, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 18:56 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > >
>> > > some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix t
On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 18:56 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >
> > > some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
> > > and the current instantiation" chan
On 07/02/17 23:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
and the current instantiation" changes made the compiler to reject
invalid code
t
On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
> On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
>> and the current instantiation" changes made the compiler to reject
>> invalid code
>> that had previously been accepted, p
Hi,
On Ter, 2017-02-07 at 22:32 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> some C++ FE changes (especially the "Fix type-dependence
> and the current instantiation" changes made the compiler to reject
> invalid code
> that had previously been accepted, plus invalid conversions with '\0'
> are now
> rejected)
It's been a tradition now that every January we rebuild all the Fedora packages
with the upcoming GCC, to reveal as many bugs as possible before we release
the new version. This year is no different.
There were 18811 packages overall (last year we had 17741 packages).
17263 built fine with the ne
28 matches
Mail list logo
