https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:436891d97aef6d7a8e107d2d3e02e8ca4c52a51a
commit r10-10571-g436891d97aef6d7a8e107d2d3e02e8ca4c52a51a
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:176e55cc28a61b7b246bd9e16ffeaa31367a8985
commit r11-9277-g176e55cc28a61b7b246bd9e16ffeaa31367a8985
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:77963796aef8aa07993c0bc757c15848fab7432a
commit r12-5109-g77963796aef8aa07993c0bc757c15848fab7432a
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-15 21:52:14 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jul 15 21:52:06 2011
New Revision: 176335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176335
Log:
/gcc
2011-07-15 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igodard at pacbell dot net
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-15
10:53:11 UTC ---
Indeed, I was having the same thought... _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS is a bit
stricter though (doesn't allow 0), but would do. And I agree that in that case
we should use another name. Esse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-15
10:47:46 UTC ---
Then you probably could use _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS as the macro to avoid
including unistd.h and assuming that _POSIX_TIMEOUT is defined.
Though perhaps better would be to call it _GTHR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-15
10:24:15 UTC ---
By the way, Jakub, correct me if I'm wrong and/or remember incorrectly what we
decided here at the time, but as far as I can see there is no risk with
__gthread_mutex_timedlock, becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-14
21:58:55 UTC ---
Sure Jakub. I was only wondering if maybe, after all these years, turns out
that libobjc doesn't really need that include anymore. We could simplify the
macros a bit...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-14
21:54:36 UTC ---
I think only libstdc++ installs the gthr* headers, all other uses inside of gcc
just include it in library *.c files rather than headers, so for _LIBOBJC it
IMHO shouldn't be harmful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |nicola.pero@meta-innovation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-14
12:43:53 UTC ---
Thanks Jakub. Thus, seems a little more difficult than we hoped, but still
doable. We'll give a try to your scheme.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-14
12:34:32 UTC ---
BTW, really shouldn't be using __gthread_mutex_timedlock if it isn't
available...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-14
12:33:16 UTC ---
svn blame isn't hard to use.
You'll find out that the unistd.h include was added by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg01666.html
There are still some of the unistd.h guard m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-14
12:13:27 UTC ---
I don't think there is a maintainer for gthreads
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-14
12:07:45 UTC ---
Before resolving as dup of 36231, let's add in CC Jakub too, it would be nice
if for 4.7 we could finally take the plunge and follow Jon's suggestion, or a
variant of it, but I don't k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-14
11:13:13 UTC ---
Why does gthr-posix.h even include ?
--- gcc/gthr-posix.h.orig 2011-07-14 11:09:00.148778460 +
+++ gcc/gthr-posix.h2011-07-14 11:09:01.763786789 +
@@ -39,7 +39,6 @
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-14
11:01:26 UTC ---
the problem is actually in gthr-posix.h
no libstdc++ header includes except which
is a non-standard extension and so that's not a problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-14
10:51:57 UTC ---
dup of PR 36231 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49745
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
27 matches
Mail list logo
