search for: smtp_address_literal

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "smtp_address_literal".

2019 Jan 25
2
Bug with latest GCC 9
Hi. As mentioned here: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1123136 there's a new issue with GCC 9, it's related to: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/porting_to.html#complit in: /* Not const! Never return this as a result directly! */ #define SMTP_ADDRESS_LITERAL(localpart, domain) \ &((struct smtp_address){ (localpart), (domain) }) Thanks, Martin
2019 Apr 25
2
Bug with latest GCC 9
...t;> https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1123136 >> >> there's a new issue with GCC 9, it's related to: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/porting_to.html#complit >> >> in: >> /* Not const! Never return this as a result directly! */ >> #define SMTP_ADDRESS_LITERAL(localpart, domain) \ >> ????&((struct smtp_address){ (localpart), (domain) }) > > Thanks for reporting this. We are working on it (tracking internally as DOP-890). > > Regards, > > Stephan. Hi. Thanks for working on that. Is there any update please? Martin
2019 Jan 25
0
Bug with latest GCC 9
...> > As mentioned here: > https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1123136 > > there's a new issue with GCC 9, it's related to: > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/porting_to.html#complit > > in: > /* Not const! Never return this as a result directly! */ > #define SMTP_ADDRESS_LITERAL(localpart, domain) \ > &((struct smtp_address){ (localpart), (domain) }) Thanks for reporting this. We are working on it (tracking internally as DOP-890). Regards, Stephan.
2019 Jul 28
0
Bug with latest GCC 9
...suse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1123136 >>> >>> there's a new issue with GCC 9, it's related to: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/porting_to.html#complit >>> >>> in: >>> /* Not const! Never return this as a result directly! */ >>> #define SMTP_ADDRESS_LITERAL(localpart, domain) \ >>> ????&((struct smtp_address){ (localpart), (domain) }) >> Thanks for reporting this. We are working on it (tracking internally as DOP-890). >> >> Regards, >> >> Stephan. > Hi. > > Thanks for working on that. Is there any u...