On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:46:59PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Tom Tromey wrote:
In this case the library has to follow the external project policy:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00558.html
It at least needs an entry on the coding conventions page.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Tom Tromey wrote:
In this case the library has to follow the external project policy:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00558.html
It at least needs an entry on the coding conventions page.
Good point. HJ, would you mind updating our coding conventions page
H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am checking in this patch to add myself as libbid maintainer.
Normally changes to the list of maintainers are approved by the
steering committee. I didn't see any notice about this one. I would
just like to confirm that this change was approved.
I'm also
I'm also uncertain as to just who approved the commit of
libgcc/config/libbid into mainline. When I look at the code I see
Both x86 maintainer and build/libgcc maintainer reviewed the patch.
Note that build != libgcc maintainer. One may argue whether a libgcc
maintainer's approval is
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:46:27AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am checking in this patch to add myself as libbid maintainer.
Normally changes to the list of maintainers are approved by the
steering committee. I didn't see any notice about this one
Hello!
I'm also uncertain as to just who approved the commit of
libgcc/config/libbid into mainline. When I look at the code I see
that it is not formatted to the GNU standard, and it includes C++
style comments which we do not normally use in C code.
IMO the situation here is the same as
Uros == Uros Bizjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uros IMO the situation here is the same as with current soft-fp
Uros situation. The library should be considered as imported from upstream,
Uros and the decisions w.r.t formatting are inherited from the
Uros upstream.
In this case the library has to
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 10:58:35AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm also uncertain as to just who approved the commit of
libgcc/config/libbid into mainline. When I look at the code I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-06/msg00457.html
H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm also uncertain as to just who approved the commit of
libgcc/config/libbid into mainline. When I look at the code I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-06/msg00457.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-06/msg00491.html
Both x86 maintainer and
Uros Bizjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMO the situation here is the same as with current soft-fp
situation. The library should be considered as imported from upstream,
and the decisions w.r.t formatting are inherited from the upstream. In
soft-fp case, functions don't have prototypes, and we
10 matches
Mail list logo
