Am Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 11:15:59AM +0200 schrieb Steffen Moeller:
>
> Formally, yes. But upstream just got a nobel price for their work - that
> work. We should not remove this now but in contrary work with upstream
> to think of some way to nicely archive their work with us and maybe they
> could
Am 10.10.2022 um 10:04 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
On 10 October 2022 11:50:14 am IST, Andreas Tille wrote:
If no one gets to it, asking for removal is a sensible option. It otherwise
imho becomes another time sapping package that no one cares about much.
There was no volunteer to pick up the gc
On 10 October 2022 11:50:14 am IST, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> If no one gets to it, asking for removal is a sensible option. It otherwise
>> imho becomes another time sapping package that no one cares about much.
>
>There was no volunteer to pick up the gcc-12 port of this package. So
>it seems
Am Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:42:21AM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> >Removal of the package would be a valid option in case fixing it will
> >consume to much person-power from our side.
>
> I had spent a bit of time on this bug report few weeks back (IIRC it was just
> reported at that time). After
On 30 September 2022 10:57:16 am IST, Andreas Tille wrote:
>Am Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 05:41:52PM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko:
>> Étienne Mollier writes:
>>
>> > I believe in the case of anfo, that warnings about auto_ptr /
>> > unique_ptr are red herrings. If I search for "error:"s, then I
>>
Am Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 05:41:52PM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko:
> Étienne Mollier writes:
>
> > I believe in the case of anfo, that warnings about auto_ptr /
> > unique_ptr are red herrings. If I search for "error:"s, then I
> > get some errors about no match for operator<:
>
> Oops, good catch
Étienne Mollier writes:
> I believe in the case of anfo, that warnings about auto_ptr /
> unique_ptr are red herrings. If I search for "error:"s, then I
> get some errors about no match for operator<:
Oops, good catch. As for unique_ptr, this is evidently one of those
situtations where whoever
Hi Étienne,
Am Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:38:23PM +0200 schrieb Étienne Mollier:
> I believe in the case of anfo, that warnings about auto_ptr /
> unique_ptr are red herrings. If I search for "error:"s, then I
> get some errors about no match for operator<:
>
> In file included from /usr/include/c+
Hi all,
Andreas Tille, on 2022-09-29:
> Am Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 04:06:23PM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko:
> > Per GCC's hint, please try formally substituting unique_ptr for
> > auto_ptr. I haven't tested that approach for this package, but it's
> > typically a safe drop-in replacement, and general
Hi Aaron,
Am Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 04:06:23PM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko:
>
> Per GCC's hint, please try formally substituting unique_ptr for
> auto_ptr. I haven't tested that approach for this package, but it's
> typically a safe drop-in replacement, and generally yields compilation
> errors in
Andreas Tille writes:
> Could anybody have a look at this gcc failure?
Per GCC's hint, please try formally substituting unique_ptr for
auto_ptr. I haven't tested that approach for this package, but it's
typically a safe drop-in replacement, and generally yields compilation
errors in the rare ca
Control: tags -1 help
Could anybody have a look at this gcc failure?
Thanks in advance
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
12 matches
Mail list logo
