https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #1 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-20, at 5:00 PM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2014/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #1)
> At one time, GCC was permissive about system header issues, particularly
> when they aren't
> really a problem. Is this still the case?
It is, yes, but this spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-23 10:02 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 3) Use fixincludes to change either the definition of __LWP_RWLOCK_VALID to
> (short)0x8c91 or change the definition of PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Mar 28 17:27:22 2015
New Revision: 221757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221757&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65500
* inclhack.def (hpux11_lwp_rwlock_valid):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
After some discussion with Torvald I'm wondering whether it would be better to
never use the PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER macro anyway, so we can initialize the
rwlock with (non-standard) attributes such as
P
