On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
>>> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear obje
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
>> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
>
> I made the change. Please report any fallout to
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:28:09PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> >> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
> >> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
> >
> > I made the change. Please report any fallout to me.
>
> i686-linux-gnu testsuite triv
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
>> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
>
> I made the change. Please report any fallout t
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:25:26PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:05:45PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:28:09PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > i686-linux-gnu testsuite trivially regressed [1]:
>
> Thanks for the log Uros.
>
> > I have half
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:05:45PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:28:09PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > i686-linux-gnu testsuite trivially regressed [1]:
Thanks for the log Uros.
> I have half of that already in patch form, will test and send either later
> tonight or t
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 09:28:09PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> >> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
> >> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
> >
> > I made the change. Please report any fallout to me.
>
> i686-linux-gnu testsuite triv
Hello!
>> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
>> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
>
> I made the change. Please report any fallout to me.
i686-linux-gnu testsuite trivially regressed [1]:
FAIL: gcc.dg/20020122-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
> commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
I made the change. Please report any fallout to me.
Enjoy.
Marek
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:07:56PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
> for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
The consensus seems to be to go forward with this change. I will
commit the patch in 24 hours unless I hear objections.
Thanks,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 02:34:51PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
> > for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
>
> I endorse the change of default.
Thanks for chiming in.
> A wiki page that h
On Oct 7, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
> for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
I endorse the change of default.
> The things I had to fix in the testsuite nicely reflect what we can expect
> in the real life:
A wiki page that
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 08:39:40PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I like it. And one could reasonably argue that now is the time to change
> > since that maximizes the time for folks to find broken code.
>
> Yep, this is definitely stage1 stuff. We still h
On 10/09/2014 08:45 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
What happened to the plans to stabilize the libstdc++ c++11 ABI? Is this still
a target for GCC 5?
Yes.
Jason
Am 08.10.2014 um 09:16 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I think it makes sense to do this (and I expect C++ will follow
> with defaulting to -std=c++11 once the ABI stuff has settled).
>
> Of course it would be nice to look at the actual fallout in
> a whole-dis
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 08:39:40PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> I like it. And one could reasonably argue that now is the time to change
> since that maximizes the time for folks to find broken code.
Yep, this is definitely stage1 stuff. We still have a few weeks, but
I wouldn't want to rush such a
On 10/07/14 15:07, Marek Polacek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
This really shouldn't be much of a surprise: the docs mention that
gnu11 is intended future default for a year now. I would presume now
is a good time to m
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 09:16:18AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think it makes sense to do this (and I expect C++ will follow
> with defaulting to -std=c++11 once the ABI stuff has settled).
Thanks. Moving to -std=c++11 would be cool!
> Of course it would be nice to look at the actual fallo
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
> for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
>
> This really shouldn't be much of a surprise: the docs mention that
> gnu11 is intended future default for a year now. I would presume now
> is
Hi!
I'd like to kick off a discussion about moving the default standard
for C from gnu89 to gnu11.
This really shouldn't be much of a surprise: the docs mention that
gnu11 is intended future default for a year now. I would presume now
is a good time to make this move: together with the new namin
20 matches
Mail list logo
