Ok, I'll give it another try.
Trying to use the same approach for targets using gnu.ver and others
thought, seems more reasonable to me.
François
On 22/05/2025 09:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025, 08:26 Jonathan Wakely, wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025, 06:26 François Dumo
On Thu, 15 May 2025, 06:26 François Dumont, wrote:
> Got
>
> On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont
> wrote:
> >> On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> Follo
On Thu, 22 May 2025, 08:26 Jonathan Wakely, wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2025, 06:26 François Dumont, wrote:
>
>> Got
>>
>> On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont
>> wrote:
>> >> On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> >>> On 31/03/2
Sending again because my previous reply got a weird 'Got' word as its
header that might be making it looks like a mistake.
On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, Fra
Got
On 14/05/2025 18:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 17:31, François Dumont wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Following this previous patch
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
> >> completed it for t
On 12/05/2025 23:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and
implemented the rest of the change to
On 31/03/25 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and
implemented the rest of the change to store the safe iterator sequence
as a point
Hi
As back to stage 1is it ok to commit this change ?
François
On 31/03/2025 22:20, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and
implemented the res
Hi
Following this previous patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2024-August/059418.html I've
completed it for the _Safe_unordered_container_base type and implemented
the rest of the change to store the safe iterator sequence as a
pointer-to-const.
libstdc++: Make debug iterator
10 matches
Mail list logo