Hi all, On 10-03-2019 13:41, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 11:00:40 -0500, Nick Bowler wrote: >> I'm not familiar with the library in question but the problem >> appears to be specific to these __atomic_xyz builtins which seem >> to get special treatment in g++. Other builtins I tested do not >> exhibit such failures. > > Retitling to reflect the scope of the bug. Does anybody know why gcc got more picky, but ONLY for __atomic_foo? If it is only __atomic_foo that is failing, can't we special case that? I.e. if testing for __atomic_foo, pass the test? Maybe only in Debian and not upstream, albeit I rather have a generic solution, but then it shouldn't be Debian pulling the boat. Or is this a ridiculous proposal? I fear that although this may have limited impact on packages in the archive, I don't know how many private builds are impacted by this. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature