This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: complex.h

From: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, bkoz at redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:05:32 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: complex.h
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1207281628130.8721@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1208102116390.3294@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr> <50268DCC.2070106@oracle.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1208111859450.3290@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr> <5474e4af-08f6-4997-9be9-b0c3e14fedd6@email.android.com> <yddd32vhsdv.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> writes:

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> ha scritto:

To be honest, I only checked the patch on linux/glibc, so there is a
real
risk on other platforms (which I don't have access to). I also did a
quick
sanity check on freebsd (not a true test).


Ok, conditioning the small change on glibc would not be a big deal, in
case. Let's ask Rainer to double check Solaris, anyway.


The testcase from the PR fails on i386-pc-solaris2.11 with g++ 4.7.0,
but works with #undef complex added, for all of -std=c++98/03/11.

That should be fine then.

I don't have an installed version of mainline, but will keep an eye for failures during the next round of bootstraps.

Thank you,

--
Marc Glisse

References:
- Re: complex.h
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: complex.h
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: complex.h
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: complex.h
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: complex.h
  - From: Rainer Orth

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]