On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
Android and B2G got fixed to use #pragma GCC visibility. So, we can go
ahead and remove all NS_HIDDEN-related code now.
This also means that when modifying Android and B2G-specific code that
uses symbols imported
Android and B2G got fixed to use #pragma GCC visibility. So, we can go
ahead and remove all NS_HIDDEN-related code now.
This also means that when modifying Android and B2G-specific code that uses
symbols imported from other dynamic libraries, you will need to add to
config/system-headers (when
On 4/22/2014 7:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
It's all over the tree, inconsistently applied. Is it relevant anymore? Can
we remove it entirely, or there some places where it's still relevant, and
if so, where ... XPCOM? Or should we be using it everywhere?
Short answer: I don't think it's
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.uswrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
It's all over the tree, inconsistently applied. Is it relevant anymore?
Can
we remove it entirely, or there some places where it's still relevant, and
if so, where
On Wednesday 2014-04-23 07:51 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:41:06AM +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
checking For gcc visibility bug with class-level attributes (GCC bug
26905)... yes
checking For x86_64 gcc visibility bug with builtins (GCC bug 20297)... yes
Is
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 07:51:54AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:41:06AM +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
benja...@smedbergs.uswrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
It's all over the tree,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
It's all over the tree, inconsistently applied. Is it relevant anymore? Can
we remove it entirely, or there some places where it's still relevant, and
if so, where ... XPCOM? Or
7 matches
Mail list logo