Pass -std=gnu++0x in build_nexe.py.

Pass -std=gnu++0x in build_nexe.py.

Doing this here instead of untrusted.gypi since the option isn't valid for
C files.

BUG=chromium:414314
CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_rel_precise32,linux_nacl_sdk,linux_chromium_dbg,linux_arm_cross_compile
R=dschuff@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client?view=rev&revision=13748

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:29:28]

thakis@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dschuff@chromium.org

[Derek Schuff, 2014-09-15 16:33:04]

LGTM.
I would say to add to a comment/commit message that this is for arm-nacl-gcc
which warns for override, but I guess you are planning on adding more C++11
features and we will need it for real pretty soon?

also, gnu++0x and not gnu++11?

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:36:14]

On 2014/09/15 16:33:04, Derek Schuff wrote:
> LGTM.

Thanks.

> I would say to add to a comment/commit message that this is for arm-nacl-gcc
> which warns for override, but I guess you are planning on adding more C++11
> features and we will need it for real pretty soon?

Right.

> also, gnu++0x and not gnu++11?

Hm, good point. Changed. (gnu++11 is only understood by newer gccs, but we
require newer gccs now anyway.)

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:37:35]

The CQ bit was checked by thakis@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 16:38:22]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patchset/571143002/20001

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:41:48]

The CQ bit was checked by thakis@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 16:41:54]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patchset/571143002/40001

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:42:05]

(switched back to 0x, because
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-mac10.7_glibc_opt/bu...
didn't like 11)

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:42:27]

On 2014/09/15 16:42:05, Nico (hiding) wrote:
> (switched back to 0x, because
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-mac10.7_glibc_opt/bu...
> didn't like 11)

…oh hmm, I guess the newlib and glibc builds don't want these flags at all?

[Nico, 2014-09-15 16:46:29]

The CQ bit was checked by thakis@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 16:46:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patchset/571143002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 16:51:34]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 16:51:35]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_nacl_sdk on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_nacl_sdk/...)
  linux_rel_precise32 on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_rel_preci...)
  nacl-win8-64_newlib_dbg on tryserver.nacl
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.nacl/builders/nacl-win8-64_newlib_dbg/b...)

[Nico, 2014-09-15 17:10:39]

The CQ bit was checked by thakis@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 17:10:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patchset/571143002/80001

[Derek Schuff, 2014-09-15 17:13:27]

On 2014/09/15 17:10:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
>  https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patchset/571143002/80001

that CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS line won't work for NaCl CQ because those are chrome bots.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 17:13:56]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-15 17:13:57]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_rel_precise32 on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_rel_preci...)

[Nico, 2014-09-15 17:19:50]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001) manually as r13748 (tree was closed).

[Nico, 2014-09-15 17:20:12]

On 2014/09/15 17:19:50, Nico (hiding) wrote:
> Committed patchset #5 (id:80001) manually as r13748 (tree was closed).

(the additional cq bots failed during "bot_update", which looks unrelated.)

[Nico, 2014-09-15 17:20:31]

On 2014/09/15 17:20:12, Nico (hiding) wrote:
> On 2014/09/15 17:19:50, Nico (hiding) wrote:
> > Committed patchset #5 (id:80001) manually as r13748 (tree was closed).
> 
> (the additional cq bots failed during "bot_update", which looks unrelated.)

…and patch set 1 has very green try results, and it's the same diff as patch set
5)