From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:17:02 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2016-02-19 In-Reply-To: <20160221100114.591bd29e@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:01:14 +0100") References: <20160220073017.2A200101DA7@stock.ovh.net> <1455997702.5444.6.camel@embedded.rocks> <20160221000639.512d7658@free-electrons.com> <871t86cvak.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20160221100114.591bd29e@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87si0mbey9.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, >> > (Not sure Peter will agree, since my proposal is not the cleanest >> > solution, but it's by far the one with the least impact.) >> >> Yes, I agree - And preferably send the patch upstream as well! > Well, in essence, this patch will not be accepted upstream. It is a > crappy work-around for a compiler bug, so it would be very logical for > upstream to reject this patch. Well, true - But presumably other Boost users may have affected toolchains, so perhaps they do want to carry it to help people (I don't know what the boost policy is, their "creative" C++ template code probably triggers various other compiler bugs). It's imho worth a try to send upstream. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard