Re: [other/80803] libgo

2017-05-17 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 05/17/2017 04:56 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: Hi Nathan, Interestingly, this patch applies cleanly, but does *not* solve the problem with libgo. Another puzzling development, since bisection showed all revisions before this being clean and all revisions afterward being problematic. Drat. :( we

Re: [other/80803] libgo

2017-05-17 Thread Bill Schmidt
Hi Nathan, Interestingly, this patch applies cleanly, but does *not* solve the problem with libgo. Another puzzling development, since bisection showed all revisions before this being clean and all revisions afterward being problematic. Drat. :( I will have to go deeper into what's happening

Re: [other/80803] libgo

2017-05-17 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 05/17/2017 01:53 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Bill, the revision you converged on is, as Ian, says, just moving some interface around. That was needed to fix obj-c++. This diff is the combination of that patch and its logical predecessor. Does reverting this diff get you back to normalcy?

[other/80803] libgo

2017-05-17 Thread Nathan Sidwell
Bill, the revision you converged on is, as Ian, says, just moving some interface around. That was needed to fix obj-c++. This diff is the combination of that patch and its logical predecessor. Does reverting this diff get you back to normalcy? nathan -- Nathan Sidwell Index: gcc/cp/cp-lang.