https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
--- Comment #7 from Peter VARGA developm...@faf-ltd.com ---
Due the fact some frameworks do NOT support gcc 5.0 yet I would like to know if
this bug is going to be fixed in a 4.9.X version or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
--- Comment #1 from Peter VARGA developm...@faf-ltd.com ---
Output for the -v option:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.9.2_source/configure --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter VARGA from comment #3)
1) I had no idea how the importance is qualified. Is my 1st bug report. For
me it was a blocker because I could not finish compiling
That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
--- Comment #3 from Peter VARGA developm...@faf-ltd.com ---
1) I had no idea how the importance is qualified. Is my 1st bug report. For me
it was a blocker because I could not finish compiling
2) Not using -Werror is really a bit hard - don't you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
--- Comment #5 from Peter VARGA developm...@faf-ltd.com ---
1) There are bugs which are not important. It is always a point of view. As a
starter here I had 2 possibilities and I took the wrong. More or less you may
be right but it was a simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65512
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
---
