On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 01:08:13AM -0500, Austin English wrote
>
> My goal is clang support parity with gcc. If you are opposed to these
> sort of checks, then why don't we deprecate and remove those functions?
> I want to know why gcc deserves special treatment, either all compilers
> should have
On 07/05/2016 12:00 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:16:55 -0500
> Austin English wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500
>>> Austin English wrote:
>>>
From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:16:55 -0500
Austin English wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500
> > Austin English wrote:
> >
> >> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Austin English
> >> Date: Mon, 27
On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500
> Austin English wrote:
>
>> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Austin English
>> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:07 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: ad
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500
Austin English wrote:
> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Austin English
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:07 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: add clang version functions
Why do you even ask for rev
From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Austin English
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:07 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: add clang version functions
Signed-off-by: Austin English
---
eclass/toolchain-funcs.eclass | 33 +++
