On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:06:03PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Presumably there's a good reason why we don't put __cpp_buff at the
> start of the structure all the time? From a purely maintenance
> standpoint that seems better
I think there are two reasons, one is mentioned in the function comment
(
On 02/27/2013 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I've noticed that libcpp/ uses --enable-checking in configure in incompatible
way from gcc/, as the configure options are passed to both, we'd better make
them compatible. In particular, libcpp would be built with checking even
e.g. when configur
Hi!
I've noticed that libcpp/ uses --enable-checking in configure in incompatible
way from gcc/, as the configure options are passed to both, we'd better make
them compatible. In particular, libcpp would be built with checking even
e.g. when configured with --enable-checking=release, on the other
