On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 11:44 AM Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 7/12/19 9:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I'd just arrange that when being compiled with clang we compile with
> > -Wno-mismatched-tags to get rid of their misdesigned warning and not add
> > such misdesigned warning to GCC, that will just he
On 7/12/19 9:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd just arrange that when being compiled with clang we compile with
> -Wno-mismatched-tags to get rid of their misdesigned warning and not add
> such misdesigned warning to GCC, that will just help people spread this
> weirdo requirement further.
FWIW an
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:31:16AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 7/23/19 10:11 AM, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Hi, SVN rev 273311 appears to have been committed without regenerating
> > gcc/config*?
>
> That commit wasn't meant to change the configure script since
> the warning implementation isn't
On 7/23/19 10:11 AM, Arvind Sankar wrote:
Hi, SVN rev 273311 appears to have been committed without regenerating
gcc/config*?
That commit wasn't meant to change the configure script since
the warning implementation isn't part of the patch. Let me
back it out.
Martin
Hi, SVN rev 273311 appears to have been committed without regenerating
gcc/config*?
Thanks.
On 7/12/19 9:36 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/12/19 5:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
On 7/12/19 9:26 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/07/19 09:14 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/12/19 5:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
1) Use
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 7/12/19 5:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
> >>>
> >>> 1) Use the struc
On 12/07/19 09:14 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 7/12/19 5:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
1) Use the struct keyword for plain old data (POD)
On 7/12/19 5:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
1) Use the struct keyword for plain old data (POD) types.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:42 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
> >>
> >> 1) Use the struct keyword for plain old data (POD) types.
> >>
On 12/07/19 10:24 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
1) Use the struct keyword for plain old data (POD) types.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/codingrationale.html#struct
and
2) Use t
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:56:51PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
>
> 1) Use the struct keyword for plain old data (POD) types.
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/codingrationale.html#struct
>
> and
>
> 2) Use the class keyword for non-POD type
A couple of GCC's Coding Conventions call to
1) Use the struct keyword for plain old data (POD) types.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/codingrationale.html#struct
and
2) Use the class keyword for non-POD types.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/codingconventions.html#Class_Use
Th
14 matches
Mail list logo
