On Sunday 11 January 2009 08:23:14 Magnus Granberg wrote:
> On Sunday 11 January 2009 09.39.08 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 January 2009 23:52:15 Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > > On Sunday 11 January 2009 04.26.00 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 January 2009 19:03:17 Ryan Hill
On Sunday 11 January 2009 09.39.08 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 10 January 2009 23:52:15 Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > On Sunday 11 January 2009 04.26.00 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 January 2009 19:03:17 Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:22:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger w
On Saturday 10 January 2009 23:52:15 Magnus Granberg wrote:
> On Sunday 11 January 2009 04.26.00 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 January 2009 19:03:17 Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:22:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > not to be out done, gcc-4.3.2-r3 will include chang
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:06:45 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:03:17 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm really hoping this isn't a stable candidate. :P
>
> Is an earlier gcc 4.3 a stable candidate, or have those plans been
> abandoned?
>
> (I'm wondering whether it's worth th
On Sunday 11 January 2009 04.26.00 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 10 January 2009 19:03:17 Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:22:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > not to be out done, gcc-4.3.2-r3 will include changes like some other
> > > distros are now carrying:
> > > - the -Wfo
On Saturday 10 January 2009 19:03:17 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:22:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > not to be out done, gcc-4.3.2-r3 will include changes like some other
> > distros are now carrying:
> > - the -Wformat-security flag is enabled by default
> > - the -D_FORTIFY_SOUR
On Sunday 11 January 2009 01.06.45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:03:17 -0600
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm really hoping this isn't a stable candidate. :P
>
> Is an earlier gcc 4.3 a stable candidate, or have those plans been
> abandoned?
>
> (I'm wondering whether it's worth the
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:03:17 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I'm really hoping this isn't a stable candidate. :P
Is an earlier gcc 4.3 a stable candidate, or have those plans been
abandoned?
(I'm wondering whether it's worth the pain of dealing with 4.1's lack
of tr1 regex support...)
--
Ciaran McCre
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:22:50 -0500
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> not to be out done, gcc-4.3.2-r3 will include changes like some other
> distros are now carrying:
> - the -Wformat-security flag is enabled by default
> - the -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 flag is enabled by default
>
> if you dont want this stu
