On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>> For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
>>
>> Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
>
> Did it work in previous versions?
>
> A regression means someth
On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
>
> Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
Did it work in previous versions?
A regression means something that used to work no longer works.
> Upcoming Ubuntu LTS will
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>
>> The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
>> write access, please
>> apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
>> fixes?).
>
> For r
On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>
> The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
> write access, please
> apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
> fixes?).
For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
> Regardi
Hi,
I observed two different behaviors in gcc 4.8.2 and 4.9 regarding
the same issue, IMO both erroneous.
Regarding 4.8.2, #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-pedantic" doesn't
work in cases such as:
void* p = 0;
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-pedantic"
F* f2 = reinterpret_cast(p);
(se
