This broken gcc 4.7 build due to use C++ grammar in C source file:
static void
skip_list (int nest_level = 0)
{
...
}
gcc -c -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE
-W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format
Hi Gleb,
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Gleb Smirnov wrote:
> I have been browsing the online docs here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/
> Turns out that clicking on "3.6 Options Controlling Objective-C and
> Objective-C++ Dialects" results in a 404 error.
>
> That is,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20140126 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140126/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On 26 January 2014 16:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I can definitely sympathise with reading the message the other way though.
> If that's the only output you see, the natural assumption is that the
> "enabled by default" applies to the thing just before it.
>
> Any objections to changing it to "t
Hi All,
I have been browsing the online docs here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/
Turns out that clicking on "3.6 Options Controlling Objective-C and
Objective-C++ Dialects" results in a 404 error.
That is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Objective-C-and-Objective-C_002
Marc Glisse writes:
>> I got an error that implies that "auto" is not usable, which would
>> mean that C++11 is not enabled, but I also got a warning that implied
>> that gnu++11 is "enabled by default".
>>
>>> error: ‘xdir’ does not name a type
>>
>>> warning: non-static data member initializers
[adding libstdc++@]
Bill Schmidt writes:
> It was recently pointed out to me that our new powerpc64le-linux-gnu
> target does not yet have a corresponding directory in libstdc
> ++-v3/config/abi/post/ to hold a baseline_symbols.txt for the platform.
> I've been looking around and haven't found an
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>>
Shall it be correct then to replace calls to error() and friends,
>
