From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-378980-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8134 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2012 15:28:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 8122 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2012 15:28:32 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:28:18 +0000
From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/51773] error building libitm/aatree.cc on ARM
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:28:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51773-4-kSUBDWYfmH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51773-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51773-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00655.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773

--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2012-01-06 15:28:16 UTC ---
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773
> 
> --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-06 12:08:11 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > We already discussed C++ 
> > semantics for those headers, see 
> > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg00847.html>.
> 
> Yep, I remember, I was just checking whether the new glibc changes altered
> things - glad to hear they don't.

You probably want to check all the C11 features in glibc (listed as 
dependencies of <http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13525> - 
my original list was 
<http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-12/msg00051.html>) for whether 
the headers do what you think they should for C++ (both C++03 and C++11) - 
and update the glibc issues for anything needing more work for C++.