On 29/04/15 17:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 17:04, Doug Evans wrote:
Tested the same patch on the gcc 5.0 branch.
Just double checking ... ok to apply there too?
Yes, OK for the branch too.
btw, the test is currently marked as unsupported by the test run.
I don't know
On 29 April 2015 at 17:04, Doug Evans wrote:
> Tested the same patch on the gcc 5.0 branch.
> Just double checking ... ok to apply there too?
Yes, OK for the branch too.
> btw, the test is currently marked as unsupported by the test run.
> I don't know what would be involved in marking it as fail
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 April 2015 at 23:33, Doug Evans wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> While we should eventually get the xmethods to handle cxx11,
>> this patch fixes the current failure.
>> The xmethod matcher doesn't currently handle __cxx11 in the type name.
>>
>>
On 27 April 2015 at 23:33, Doug Evans wrote:
> Hi.
>
> While we should eventually get the xmethods to handle cxx11,
> this patch fixes the current failure.
> The xmethod matcher doesn't currently handle __cxx11 in the type name.
>
> Adding cxx11 support can be a follow up patch.
Agreed. And when t
Hi.
While we should eventually get the xmethods to handle cxx11,
this patch fixes the current failure.
The xmethod matcher doesn't currently handle __cxx11 in the type name.
Adding cxx11 support can be a follow up patch.
Ok to commit?
2015-04-27 Doug Evans
* testsuite/libstdc++-xmet
