Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> This patch is pretty self explanatory.
>
> it allows us to keep patches for various ports separately in a sparse
> hierarchy while not having to write to the ports tree itself.
Nice idea ! I'll have a look.
BTW I've had something somewhat similar for maybe a decade or
Baptiste and I have been looking at reproducible builds in the FreeBSD
ports tree, and one thing we'll need is a consistent timestamp that
doesn't change when a port is rebuilt without changes.
We considered a few different ideas, and have settled on experimenting
with the time 'make makesum' is r
On 12 May 2016, at 13:33, Yuri wrote:
>
> clang++37 compiles this simple program fine on 10.3, but fails on 9.3.
>
> Why does it behave differently on different OS versions?
>
> It looks like it ignores -std=c++11 on 9.3.
You cannot compile for C++11 on a 9.x installation, because clang will
u
On Fri, 13 May 2016 00:11:47 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote
> This patch is pretty self explanatory.
>
> it allows us to keep patches for various ports separately in a sparse
> hierarchy while not having to write to the ports tree itself.
>
> In case the list scrubs hte text attachment (diff) her
On 05/12/2016 04:33, Yuri wrote:
clang++37 compiles this simple program fine on 10.3, but fails on 9.3.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209467
Yuri
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinf
This patch is pretty self explanatory.
it allows us to keep patches for various ports separately in a sparse
hierarchy while not having to write to the ports tree itself.
In case the list scrubs hte text attachment (diff) here's the
description part of the diff.
> //depot/bugatti/FreeBS
clang++37 compiles this simple program fine on 10.3, but fails on 9.3.
Why does it behave differently on different OS versions?
It looks like it ignores -std=c++11 on 9.3.
Yuri
---program---
#include
int main() {
const int vmax = std::numeric_limits::max();
static_assert(vmax>0, "");
}
