Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "r201843".
Did you mean:
201843
2014 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] 3.4 branch gcc 4.9 build error
...pprove merging these three patches into any release,
> Richard Smith is the person to ask IMO.
>
The first two are approved for the branch if Tom wants to take them (and
they seem like good fixes to have).
Tom: if you take r201729, you will need to also take the corresponding
libc++ change, r201843.
r207606 hasn't had much time to bake, and fixes a problem that is not a
regression, so I'd be hesitant to approve it for 3.4.1.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140505/7e456011/attach...
2014 May 06
2
[LLVMdev] 3.4 branch gcc 4.9 build error
...Smith is the person to ask IMO.
> >
> >
> > The first two are approved for the branch if Tom wants to take them
> > (and they seem like good fixes to have).
> >
> > Tom: if you take r201729, you will need to also take the corresponding
> > libc++ change, r201843.
> >
> > r207606 hasn't had much time to bake, and fixes a problem that is not
> > a regression, so I'd be hesitant to approve it for 3.4.1.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out Richard. r201729 + r201843 sounds good.
>
> I'm concerned that advice has alread...
2014 May 05
3
[LLVMdev] 3.4 branch gcc 4.9 build error
On 04/05/2014 02:30, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 12:32:02AM +0100, Alp Toker wrote:
>> On 02/05/2014 20:45, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>>> Bump.
>>>
>>> Is it really unsupported to build llvm from scratch with gcc 4.9 and
>>> libstdc++ 4.9? Should I file a bugzilla ticket instead?
>> Obviously LLVM/clang should compile out of the box