some comments:
- please add appropriate changelog entries
- don't rely on autogen during the build. I was just
happy to get rid off it. I think it's fine
to keep the auto generated toplevel Makefile.
It doesn't change that often.
I think it makes sense to build gnat out of the gcc-5
Processing control commands:
reassign -1 gdb
Bug #780657 [gcc-5] libcc1-0: broken regex when calculating compiler
Bug reassigned from package 'gcc-5' to 'gdb'.
No longer marked as found in versions gcc-5/5-20150314-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #780657 to the same values
Control: reassign -1 gdb
gdb needs the fix. I sent a patch upstream.
On 03/17/2015 02:28 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
Package: gcc-5
Version: 5-20150314-1
Severity: normal
Hello,
gcc-5: /usr/lib/gcc/i586-linux-gnu/5/libcc1.so
GNU GDB 7.9 attempts to dlopen such library, but it is not
I guess this
was done in order to be able to use the same omp.h on both i386 and
amd64, but I don't think this is still needed now that omp.h is in
arch-specific
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/include/omp.h
Could you consider removing this patch?
this location is not arch-specific for
Matthias Klose, le Tue 24 Mar 2015 16:09:27 +0100, a écrit :
I guess this
was done in order to be able to use the same omp.h on both i386 and
amd64, but I don't think this is still needed now that omp.h is in
arch-specific
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/include/omp.h
Could you
Hi Bastian,
The C++ standard does not allow the compiler to arbitrarily choose
which constructor to use.
In any case, explicitly deleting the copy constructor does not affect
the output. Moreover, the bug actually exists with the copy
constructor as well, as shown with the first modified program
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:20:20AM -0700, Kenton Varda wrote:
My hunch is that GCC is incorrectly deciding that the modifications to
the source object don't matter, perhaps because it's a temporary that
will be destroyed shortly anyway and GCC incorrectly decides that D's
destructor is
Moin
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 03:18:08PM -0700, Kenton Varda wrote:
The attached self-contained script will demonstrate the problem.
Are you sure gcc does not use the implicit and easier copy constructor?
I'm not sure what the standard say about this, but please explicitely
remove the copy
8 matches
Mail list logo
