sp by
the maintainer of C-Kermit.
I would be happy to revert the change at the first since of trouble, to
raise the white flag before the flamethrower goes off.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, at 10:57 AM, John Cotton Ericson wrote:
Sure. If they show up, we can definitely revert it. But what happens
if
On 9/25/23 10:24, Zack Weinberg wrote:
It is ultimately ldv's call, but Jacob's experiment is not good enough
for me to approve.
So I saw Jacob's research as not demonstrating using functions is
*definitely* OK, but that has indicating it *might* be OK. Does that
sound better?
The thing
On 9/21/23 22:31, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, at 3:52 PM, John Ericson wrote:
...
# Functions
###
+# Invalid configuration; display a message and exit
+#
+# Param 1: configuration
+# Param 2: message
+invalid_config () {
+ echo "Invalid
+1 from me
John
P.S. I was wondering why this wasn't called aarch64ec, or why it is an
arch and not ABI; I found https://reviews.llvm.org/D125412 and saw it
was because the dash-separated format couldn't easily accommodate the
combinatorial explosion of {mingw, msvc}{regular ABI, this new
I am not the maintainer, but would you mind adding some tests to the
test suite for your patch too?
