On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> (I don't have an easy way to test the build with gcc-5, so this may not be
> exhaustive.)
Even with the fix applied, the parser still fails to build with gcc-5,
with the errors:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/10278117/
The following patch
On 02/17/2015 11:36 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> (I don't have an easy way to test the build with gcc-5, so this may not be
>> exhaustive.)
>
> Even with the fix applied, the parser still fails to build with gcc-5,
> with the errors:
>
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:44:42AM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
> On 02/17/2015 11:36 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> >> (I don't have an easy way to test the build with gcc-5, so this may not be
> >> exhaustive.)
> >
> > Even with the fix
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:44:42AM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
> On 02/17/2015 11:36 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> >> (I don't have an easy way to test the build with gcc-5, so this may not be
> >> exhaustive.)
> >
> > Even with the fix
On 02/17/2015 12:33 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:44:42AM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 02/17/2015 11:36 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
(I don't have an easy way to test the build with gcc-5, so this may not
On 02/17/2015 12:07 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:44:42AM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 02/17/2015 11:36 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40:41PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
(I don't have an easy way to test the build with gcc-5, so this may not b
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:10:34PM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
> well we actually have a lot of the pattern where ostream & is returned
> but those (with the patches applied) don't end up using their return
> value.
> ie. we invoke dump(os) but don't do os << dump(os)
> We do have instances whe
On 02/17/2015 03:15 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:10:34PM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
>> well we actually have a lot of the pattern where ostream & is returned
>> but those (with the patches applied) don't end up using their return
>> value.
>> ie. we invoke dump(os) but d
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 03:31:13PM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
> yeah, basically, I don't think our use of dump returning ostream&
> is a good use. the << operator is infix and transforms the code
> which you don't get with the direct fn/method call. So it becomes
> hard to correctly mix dump() wi
