On 2019/06/08 12:08, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > Probably I'm not the right person to give an "Ok",
>
> Actually I usually ask for oks from maintainers, even when they don't
> have a cvs account. This whole "contributor or maintainer or developer"
> scheme can be confusing sometimes.
ack
On Fri, Jun 07 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Hello Jeremie,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> On 08/05/2019 16:30, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> On Wed, May 08 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 06 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
One
Hello Jeremie,
Sorry for the late reply.
On 08/05/2019 16:30, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
On Wed, May 08 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
On Mon, May 06 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
[...]
One serious issue, straight from the 80's, is the lack of feature
detection for lot
On Wed, May 08 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Mon, May 06 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> One serious issue, straight from the 80's, is the lack of feature
>> detection for lots of stuff, leading to ugly #ifdefs. For example,
>> using gcc -std=gnu89, the only war
On Mon, May 06 2019, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
[...]
> One serious issue, straight from the 80's, is the lack of feature
> detection for lots of stuff, leading to ugly #ifdefs. For example,
> using gcc -std=gnu89, the only warning you get is:
>
> timing.c:103: warning: passing argument
On Wed, May 08 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Hello Jeremie,
>
> thanks for the time you spent to look into this.
>
> On 06/05/2019 16:34, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> [...]
>> gcc errors out because for ANSI C, C++ comments are an extension
>> disabled by -std=c89. To enable extensi
Hello Jeremie,
thanks for the time you spent to look into this.
On 06/05/2019 16:34, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
[...]
gcc errors out because for ANSI C, C++ comments are an extension
disabled by -std=c89. To enable extensions, one should use -std=gnu89.
This fixes the build with gcc. ok?
On Sun, May 05 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Hello Jeremie,
>
> On 05/05/2019 15:10, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> On Sun, May 05 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS
>> wrote:
> [...]
>> Maybe there are lots of those warnings and fixing them all means
>> patching, but this is technically
Hello Jeremie,
On 05/05/2019 15:10, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
On Sun, May 05 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
[...]
Maybe there are lots of those warnings and fixing them all means
patching, but this is technically the wrong approach. The right
approach is to include the appropriat
On Sun, May 05 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Dear ports@ readers,
>
> from the last landry@'s sparc64 bulk build report (see [1]), I noticed
> that cad/netgen was failing.
>
> I think the reason is the "-std=c89" flag that I added to reduce the
> noise during compile, hiding a bunch of th
Dear ports@ readers,
from the last landry@'s sparc64 bulk build report (see [1]), I noticed
that cad/netgen was failing.
I think the reason is the "-std=c89" flag that I added to reduce the
noise during compile, hiding a bunch of this kind of messages:
warning: implicit declaration of func
11 matches
Mail list logo
