On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 04:21:25AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:09:23AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > Huh?! Read the first posting in this thread. I suggest that you do
> > forced commits to contrib/gcc/config/i386/*.h (probably other arches
> > too) that were surg
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:09:23AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Huh?! Read the first posting in this thread. I suggest that you do
> forced commits to contrib/gcc/config/i386/*.h (probably other arches
> too) that were surgered.
I already did 2 forced committs. See some of Peter's email on t
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:51:25AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 03:16:35PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > I have stumbled to this too, and thought I'm getting crazy. After
> > some hours of investigation, I have found that O'Brien did some
> > repo-surgery there, remove
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 03:16:35PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> I have stumbled to this too, and thought I'm getting crazy. After
> some hours of investigation, I have found that O'Brien did some
> repo-surgery there, removed some revisions, and later replaced
> them with the new stuff (well, n
Yup, you are right, thanks. I remember about the problem, but did not
remember the symptoms of it, so didn't put two and two together. :-(
> I have stumbled to this too, and thought I'm getting crazy. After
> some hours of investigation, I have found that O'Brien did some
> repo-surgery there, r
I have stumbled to this too, and thought I'm getting crazy. After
some hours of investigation, I have found that O'Brien did some
repo-surgery there, removed some revisions, and later replaced
them with the new stuff (well, new stuff took the same revisions),
and now some of your checked out sour
