[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: GCC5
From: Helio Chissini de Castro <helio () kde ! org>
Date: 2015-01-14 16:12:57
Message-ID: CAKPiqoHZbr_36JmORft0_7cPrEryX=HNKjz+A=QiBqhcHgPACg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Jonathan Underwood <
jonathan.underwood@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 14:47, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 02:44:03PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >> On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Jonathan Underwood
> >> <jonathan.underwood@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Only a partial answer to your question, but one fairly significant
> >> > change (as you know) compared to the GCC upgrades for those releases
> >> > is moving from C89 to C11 as the default C standard for the compiler
> >>
> >> Is there any easy way for humble little upstream maintainers to test
> >> their code with the new compiler?
> >
> > You mean for the C89 -> C11 default change, or for other changes in GCC
> 5?
> > For the former, just build with -std=gnu11 with GCC 4.9 (or 4.8).
>
> Perhaps it would be worth adding -std=gnu11 to the F22 default flags
> now and having a rebuild, before gcc5 lands, to start shaking out
> problems now?
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
+1 for this.
Will help a lot to see how all the code base is behaving well on new
standards
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 \
at 1:46 PM, Jonathan Underwood <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:jonathan.underwood@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">jonathan.underwood@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 14 January 2015 at 14:47, Jakub Jelinek \
<<a href="mailto:jakub@redhat.com">jakub@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br> > On \
Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 02:44:03PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:<br> >> On 14 \
January 2015 at 14:37, Jonathan Underwood<br> >> <<a \
href="mailto:jonathan.underwood@gmail.com">jonathan.underwood@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br> >> > Only a partial answer to your question, but one fairly \
significant<br> >> > change (as you know) compared to the GCC upgrades for \
those releases<br> >> > is moving from C89 to C11 as the default C standard \
for the compiler<br> >><br>
>> Is there any easy way for humble little upstream maintainers to test<br>
>> their code with the new compiler?<br>
><br>
> You mean for the C89 -> C11 default change, or for other changes in GCC \
5?<br> > For the former, just build with -std=gnu11 with GCC 4.9 (or 4.8).<br>
<br>
</span>Perhaps it would be worth adding -std=gnu11 to the F22 default flags<br>
now and having a rebuild, before gcc5 lands, to start shaking out<br>
problems now?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">--<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" \
target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br> Fedora \
Code of Conduct: <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct" \
target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra">+1 for this.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra">Will help a lot to see how all the code base is behaving well on \
new standards</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic