On 01/20/15 17:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 01/20/15 20:06, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
On 01/20/15 16:50, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 01/20/15 18:21, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
The problem reported by Luigi has been fixed in r277225 already.
Regards,
Navdeep
But the fix is rather ugly, isn't it? I would personally prefer to just
kill the older
gcc but in the meantime updating it so that it behaves like the updated
gcc/clang would be better. IMHO.
I'm not sure why you think the fix is ugly. Modifying the base
compiler to deal with minor stuff like this seems excessive and I
never even considered that.
"Modifying the base compiler to deal with minor stuff like this" is
actually called
"an update" since upstream already did it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10676
You could also call it "making it more compatible with clang and newer gcc"
The base compiler is ugly as it can be but that's upstream's fault, not
the fault
those of us that were once condemned to add bandaids. Happily I am not
planning to touch it anymore ;).
I'm not planning to touch it at all, and I'm happy too :-)
Regards,
Navdeep
Pedro.
Regards,
Navdeep
Pedro.
On 01/20/15 15:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
I got this patch from the OpenBSD-tech list[1].
Perhaps this fixes the gcc issue?
Apparently it's required for mesa too.
Pedro.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.tech/40604
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
