Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: It's been so long since I did anything with our web pages, I'm not entirely sure of proper procedures anymore. Gerald, this look OK? Basically. ;-) Per http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html, should it be run time? And add a /li at the end if the item. If anything else needs tweaking, I'll keep an eye on it. Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com
Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
On 01/01/14 04:28, Ryan Hill wrote: On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:41:01 -0600 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: Here's the final patch to remove mudflap. Per the multiple recommendations, it leaves the options as nops and warns for them. Can you write something about this for changes.html? It's been so long since I did anything with our web pages, I'm not entirely sure of proper procedures anymore. Gerald, this look OK? Index: changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.51 diff -c -p -r1.51 changes.html *** changes.html8 Jan 2014 06:38:59 - 1.51 --- changes.html9 Jan 2014 04:55:07 - *** *** 15,20 --- 15,23 h2Caveats/h2 ul + lipThe mudflap runtime checker has been removed. The mudflap + options remain, but do nothing./p + lipSupport for a number of older systems and recently unmaintained or untested target ports of GCC has been declared obsolete in GCC 4.9. Unless there is activity to revive them, the
Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:41:01 -0600 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: Here's the final patch to remove mudflap. Per the multiple recommendations, it leaves the options as nops and warns for them. Can you write something about this for changes.html? -- Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
On 10/26/13 15:08, Joseph S. Myers wrote: As far as I can see, the commit left empty libmudflap directories around rather than removing them (SVN, unlike git, allows empty directories to be represented in the repository). I'll check out an SVN tree and remove the empty directory. jeff
Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
On Oct 28, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/26/13 15:08, Joseph S. Myers wrote: As far as I can see, the commit left empty libmudflap directories around rather than removing them (SVN, unlike git, allows empty directories to be represented in the repository). I'll check out an SVN tree and remove the empty directory. Looks like mike stump has already did this. Thanks, Andrew jeff
Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
On Oct 28, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/26/13 15:08, Joseph S. Myers wrote: As far as I can see, the commit left empty libmudflap directories around rather than removing them (SVN, unlike git, allows empty directories to be represented in the repository). I'll check out an SVN tree and remove the empty directory. No time like the present, I removed it. I did a bootstrap on linux to try and ensure no fallout.
Re: [PATCH] Final removal of mudflap
As far as I can see, the commit left empty libmudflap directories around rather than removing them (SVN, unlike git, allows empty directories to be represented in the repository). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
