svn commit: r276485 - in head/sys: conf dev/cxgbe modules/cxgbe/if_cxgbe

[Navdeep Parhar]

On 01/20/15 17:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> On 01/20/15 20:06, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
>> On 01/20/15 16:50, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/20/15 18:21, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
>>>> The problem reported by Luigi has been fixed in r277225 already.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Navdeep
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the fix is rather ugly, isn't it? I would personally prefer to just
>>> kill the older
>>> gcc but in the meantime updating it so that it behaves like the updated
>>> gcc/clang would be better. IMHO.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think the fix is ugly.  Modifying the base
>> compiler to deal with minor stuff like this seems excessive and I
>> never even considered that.
>>
>
> "Modifying the base compiler to deal with minor stuff like this" is
> actually called
> "an update" since upstream already did it:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10676
>
> You could also call it "making it more compatible with clang and newer gcc"
>
> The base compiler is ugly as it can be but that's upstream's fault, not
> the fault
> those of us that were once condemned to add bandaids. Happily I am not
> planning to touch it anymore ;).

I'm not planning to touch it at all, and I'm happy too :-)

Regards,
Navdeep

>
> Pedro.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Navdeep
>>
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>>> On 01/20/15 15:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>> Hi;
>>>>>
>>>>> I got this patch from the OpenBSD-tech list[1].
>>>>> Perhaps this fixes the gcc issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it's required for mesa too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedro.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.tech/40604
>>>>>