--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-31 16:31
---
Created an attachment (id=2769)
-- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2769action=view)
Add test of --sort-common command line option
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-31 16:34
---
Hi Evandro,
Thanks for the patch. I have applied it together with the changelog entry
below. Plus I added a line about it to the ld/NEWS file, and I created a linker
testsuite test for it so that we can be
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 11:00
---
Hi Evandro,
Right - I have checked in your documentation patch. (Sorry about the delay in
getting to this).
Do you have a patch to implement the new user-choice-of-sorting algorithm, or
is there really no
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-05-01 23:23
---
Created an attachment (id=2720)
-- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2720action=view)
Change the documentation according to the code.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430
Hi Guys,
You are correct in that this way a gap would be avoided when the size changes.
But given that all like-sized symbols are laid out back to back, this only
happens when the size changes.
So, either the manual must be changed or the code. I, for one, would rather
have the code
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-04-22 14:45
---
Subject: Re: --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
Hi Guys,
You are correct in that this way a gap would be avoided when the size
changes.
But given that all like-sized symbols are laid out back
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-04-22 16:56
---
As a matter of fact, the current implementation actually sorts by alignment.
I like Nick's suggestion, only I prefer terser wording, such as ascending or
descending. But that's me.
--
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-22
17:17 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
As a matter of fact, the current implementation actually sorts by alignment.
I like Nick's suggestion, only I prefer terser wording, such as ascending or
descending. But
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-04-22 01:05
---
You are correct in that this way a gap would be avoided when the size changes.
But given that all like-sized symbols are laid out back to back, this only
happens when the size changes.
So, either the manual
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-04-20 18:21
---
Sure, but I'll be hitting the road this week. Later on then.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug,
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-04-17 23:04
---
Created an attachment (id=2707)
-- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2707action=view)
Patch for correct --sort-common.
Either the documentation or the implementation is incorrect. In the latter
11 matches
Mail list logo
