On 2019-01-09 15:20, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thomas Huth writes:
>
>> On 2019-01-09 14:10, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Thomas Huth writes:
>>>
On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 2019-01-09 11:58,
Thomas Huth writes:
> On 2019-01-09 14:10, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth writes:
>>
>>> On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at
On 2019-01-09 14:27, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 02:20:02PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 2019-01-09 13:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:52:02PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09,
On 2019-01-09 13:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:52:02PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07,
On 2019-01-09 14:10, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thomas Huth writes:
>
>> On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 02:20:02PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-09 13:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:52:02PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:52:02PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
Thomas Huth writes:
> On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Different versions of GCC and Clang use
On 2019-01-09 12:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
Different versions of GCC and Clang use different versions of the C
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:25:43PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> Different versions of GCC and Clang use different versions of the C
> >> standard.
> >> This repeatedly caused
On 2019-01-09 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Different versions of GCC and Clang use different versions of the C standard.
>> This repeatedly caused problems already, e.g. with duplicated typedefs:
>>
>>
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:45:26AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Different versions of GCC and Clang use different versions of the C standard.
> This repeatedly caused problems already, e.g. with duplicated typedefs:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-11/msg05829.html
>
> or
Different versions of GCC and Clang use different versions of the C standard.
This repeatedly caused problems already, e.g. with duplicated typedefs:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-11/msg05829.html
or with for-loop variable initializers:
13 matches
Mail list logo