search for: r280330

...into release_39? I know 3.9.1 final was just tagged, but having it on the branch will make it easier for distributions to find since this is a fairly common pattern, and of course it would be good to fix this regression in 3.9.2 if there is one >>> >>> I think this was fixed in r280330 (in clang). >> >> Thanks. That indeed looks like it. I'll pull that into our patchset, but could we get that cherry-picked onto release_39 to benefit others as well? >> >> Thanks, >> Jeremy >> >> >>> >>> Fred >>> >&...

...lease_39? I know 3.9.1 final was just tagged, but having it on the branch will make it easier for distributions to find since this is a fairly common pattern, and of course it would be good to fix this regression in 3.9.2 if there is one >>>> >>>> I think this was fixed in r280330 (in clang). >>> >>> Thanks. That indeed looks like it. I'll pull that into our patchset, but could we get that cherry-picked onto release_39 to benefit others as well? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeremy >>> >>> >>>> >&...

...an we get it cherry-picked into release_39? I know 3.9.1 final was just tagged, but having it on the branch will make it easier for distributions to find since this is a fairly common pattern, and of course it would be good to fix this regression in 3.9.2 if there is one I think this was fixed in r280330 (in clang). Fred > > --Jeremy > > > --- > > ~ $ clang++-mp-3.9 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -c macho_relocatable_file.cpp > In file included from src/ld/parsers/macho_relocatable_file.cpp:37: > src/ld/parsers/libunwind/DwarfInstructions.hpp:920:13: error: redeclaration of...

...it cherry-picked into release_39? I know 3.9.1 final was just tagged, but having it on the branch will make it easier for distributions to find since this is a fairly common pattern, and of course it would be good to fix this regression in 3.9.2 if there is one > > I think this was fixed in r280330 (in clang). Thanks. That indeed looks like it. I'll pull that into our patchset, but could we get that cherry-picked onto release_39 to benefit others as well? Thanks, Jeremy > > Fred > >> >> --Jeremy >> >> >> --- >> >> ~ $ clang++-...

...y-picked into release_39? I know 3.9.1 final was just tagged, but having it on the branch will make it easier for distributions to find since this is a fairly common pattern, and of course it would be good to fix this regression in 3.9.2 if there is one >> >> I think this was fixed in r280330 (in clang). > > Thanks. That indeed looks like it. I'll pull that into our patchset, but could we get that cherry-picked onto release_39 to benefit others as well? > > Thanks, > Jeremy > > >> >> Fred >> >>> >>> --Jeremy >>&...

...ow 3.9.1 final was just tagged, but having it on the branch will make it easier for distributions to find since this is a fairly common pattern, and of course it would be good to fix this regression in 3.9.2 if there is one >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this was fixed in r280330 (in clang). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. That indeed looks like it. I'll pull that into our patchset, but could we get that cherry-picked onto release_39 to benefit others as well? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jeremy >>>&...

3.9.0 and current release_39 (r90413) have issues with older static assertion macros like this one from an older libunwind: #define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT( expr ) \ extern int compile_time_assert_failed[ ( expr ) ? 1 : -1 ] __attribute__( ( unused ) ); I notice that the issue is fixed on current trunk. Does anyone know what revision introduced the fix? Can we get it