I was waiting for 7.1.0 but as it isn't coming, I will upload it now
S
Le 26/02/2019 à 23:58, Svante Signell a écrit :
ping!
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 12:51 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:21 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
ping!
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 12:51 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:21 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:21 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le 20/02/2019 à 09:19, Dun Hum a écrit :
> > > Would you have a testcase which shows the issue? This to make sure we
> > > don't regress again
> > > in the future.
> > The simplest test case is the following one, it only checks that the
Le 20/02/2019 à 09:19, Dun Hum a écrit :
Would you have a testcase which shows the issue? This to make sure we
don't regress again
in the future.
The simplest test case is the following one, it only checks that the enum value
exist and has the correct
name.
```
#include
int main()
{
> Would you have a testcase which shows the issue? This to make sure we
> don't regress again
> in the future.
The simplest test case is the following one, it only checks that the enum value
exist and has the correct
name.
```
#include
int main()
{
(void)llvm::Triple::KFreeBSD;
Hello,
Le 20/02/2019 à 00:07, A.C. a écrit :
Source: llvm-toolchain-7
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
A recently merged patch that introduced support for KFreeBSD broke the API
compatibility by introducing pointless renamings of enumeration values (KFreeBSD
to kFreeBSD) and
Source: llvm-toolchain-7
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
A recently merged patch that introduced support for KFreeBSD broke the API
compatibility by introducing pointless renamings of enumeration values (KFreeBSD
to kFreeBSD) and classes/structures.
This change is not purely cosmetic and
7 matches
Mail list logo
