On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 09:34:52AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 16:27 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >> FYI, I pushed these in now. I also bootstrapped with the
> >> jit included in the selected languages, and hacked the
> >> jit c
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 16:27 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> FYI, I pushed these in now. I also bootstrapped with the
>> jit included in the selected languages, and hacked the
>> jit code a bit to trigger the problems OVERRIDE intends to
>> catch, just to ma
Hi David,
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
> I propose that we update our coding conventions to mention the OVERRIDE
> and FINAL macros in the paragraph that discusses virtual funcs.
>
> The attached patch (to the website) does so.
>
> OK to commit?
I saw that Pedro agreed, but none of
On 10/14/2016 10:28 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> I propose that we update our coding conventions to mention the OVERRIDE
> and FINAL macros in the paragraph that discusses virtual funcs.
>
> The attached patch (to the website) does so.
>
Good idea, I like it.
GDB is following GCC's C++ coding co
On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 16:27 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 03:13 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/12/2016 04:09 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks. Here's a follow up patch that I was just testing.
> > >
> > > Need this if building with "g++ -std=gnu++11", with gcc < 4.7.
> >
