From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id PlnrCBOKc192VgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:25:07 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0EA831EF4A; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:25:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15BBF1EF44 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8903842411; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:25:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (mail-wm1-f67.google.com [209.85.128.67]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8C63842411 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:25:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org EB8C63842411 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alves.ped@gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id d4so5770414wmd.5 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:25:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VMgfRTNlOwFuAs7279y8SdzOPjlJG+8gN5TZVSaoJiI=; b=V7huqyCTPdsqn1Ykj49tO/SWy1Bpyxl6ExCMxG8mbCVHoCK3ZCNBh3qCP7uRVKJOEP oNSNB8ApBmDFiE8ZqKlH0oxfAyuhKHbdUeAUP4Rf9por7vGffPtWc1n4CyitsH9deXkt 6Tlv9v2hWD+oiGnBzjQqF/tTf4LP0nXzkc/FAcFVRJtx9uroI6kP8da2fuQdWvPI4zl6 +0q1BCbhPOB5mjeuQv6NRwLhOJ9AS6ID5/vssjTZFmDKeVST/+n+nvED8wn7dTwnm5nO Q2uul6dr0Yk81TDtF2ec9cT3XUkdDSHQv546QVTQ7WxSuiRQA6VF69Yilez9cFmkKysR TMZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZcaEoywHQIacZxm7YM++KS4sEUCbo+yzwFph55haRpYZ11OPp 8wLKS0FACryqoDgk/9Jl3eTOocFUsipWEQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJypkoUqBzSVRiAS15xzrd6PuzTjFlg15WxTRbxhro2ivmzpV/4p6cs72ANqLTuLo/SBFd+dTw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4943:: with SMTP id w64mr5933672wma.62.1601407501274; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f905:5600:eefd:c63:53e0:3e8a? ([2001:8a0:f905:5600:eefd:c63:53e0:3e8a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y207sm6612532wmc.17.2020.09.29.12.24.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Rewrite valid-expr.h's internals in terms of the detection idiom (C++17/N4502) To: Tom Tromey References: <20200821144523.19451-1-pedro@palves.net> <20200821144523.19451-2-pedro@palves.net> <87mu19hgmh.fsf@tromey.com> <7dc15697-160f-e1a9-84da-f7a770e36a80@linaro.org> <87eemlhdti.fsf@tromey.com> <87a6x8hgz5.fsf@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <1aea544a-50b6-8812-6d55-c67fe2444b61@palves.net> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:24:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87a6x8hgz5.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 9/29/20 2:04 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>> I'm not sure if it was exactly this patch, but after I merged this code >>>> to our internal tree, we started having build problems on a machine that >>>> uses GCC 6.4. I've appended the error message. >>>> I'm not sure it is worth doing anything about this, but I thought it >>>> would be worth noting in case anybody else winds up in this situation. >>>> Tom > > Luis> It was reported before on this thread a week or so ago. Unless GCC 6.4 > Luis> isn't supported any longer, I think it should be fixed. > > Tom> Ok, thanks. I will find out tonight. > > Oops, I really misunderstood your note, and re-reading it now I can't > really understand why. I thought you were saying it was fixed, but > really you were saying it is still there and should be fixed if we want > to support GCC 6.4. > > I am not sure if we should try to fix it or not. Locally I plan to > disable unit tests on this particular machine. It is the only one using > 6.4. I built a GCC 6.4 here, and could reproduce it. I'm testing a fix.