I spoke with a partner today who suggested that perhaps it would be a
bit easier to follow the voluminous GCC mailing list if we had separate
lists for patches related to particular back-ends (e.g., ARM, MIPS,
Power, SuperH, x86, etc.).
The idea here is that (as with libstdc++), we'd send patches
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
What do people think about this idea?
I think this is really bad idea. A lot of the time, back-end patches
for one target inspires some folks to do patches for another target.
Or for an example, look at how FMA has been
On 11/16/2010 09:29 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The idea here is that (as with libstdc++), we'd send patches to
gcc-patches@ and gcc-$arch@, but that reviewers for a particular
back-end would find it easier to keep track of things on the
architecture-specific lists, and also that this would make
On 16/11/2010 17:29, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I spoke with a partner today who suggested that perhaps it would be a
bit easier to follow the voluminous GCC mailing list if we had separate
(Do you mean the voluminous gcc-patches mailing list perhaps?)
lists for patches related to particular
On 11/16/2010 11:24 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
I think it's probably an over-engineered solution to a problem we could
really address best by remembering to use []-tags in the subject lines.
OK, that seems to be as close to consensus as we're probably going to
get. Let's try and do that.
Thank
