llvm dev - May 2014 - [LLVMdev] 3.4 branch gcc 4.9 build error

Tom,

now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the
three fixes or at least merging them to the 3.4 branch?

On 10 May 2014 22:48, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz at gmail.com>
wrote:
> now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the
> three fixes or at least merging them to the 3.4 branch?
Will we need to make sure we test it with 4.9 too as well as 4.8/4.7?
Or is this just a high-level bug that, if it's fixed in one arch, it's
fixed in all?

--renato

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:48:23PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz
wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the
> three fixes or at least merging them to the 3.4 branch?
I've pushed the two approved patches to the 3.4 branch, can you verify
that they work with gcc 4.9.

Thanks,
Tom

On Thu, 15 May 2014 02:25:30 +0200, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:48:23PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the three
> > fixes or at least merging them to the 3.4 branch?
>
> I've pushed the two approved patches to the 3.4 branch, can you
> verify that they work with gcc 4.9.
Thanks, Tom.

Fresh (svn rev 208853) checkout of llvm, clang, etc:

llvm[1]: Compiling APFloat.cpp for Release build
In file included from APFloat.cpp:15:
In file included from /tmp/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APFloat.h:20:
In file included from /tmp/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h:19:
In file included from /tmp/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h:14:
In file included from /tmp/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h:17:
In file included from /tmp/llvm/include/llvm/Support/AlignOf.h:19:
/usr/lib64/[...]/c++/4.9.0/cstddef:51:11: error:
      no member named 'max_align_t' in the global namespace
  using ::max_align_t;
        ~~^
1 error generated.

As the fixes got merged to the release_34 branch, I went to check the
local configure options and noticed I was passing --enable-cxx11. If I
omit that, there's no max_align_t error. I don't remember when I added
that, but it used to build prior to gcc 4.9. Just so I understand, is
that flag meant to be enabled (and known to work) when llvm is built
by clang, or is that also in need of fixing for gcc 4.9?