On Wednesday 29 June 2016 21:58:40 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29/06/16 13:49 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> >Please include the libstdc++ list, they don't all read the other list.
>
> And the documentation clearly says (in two places) that all libstdc++
> patches must go to the libstdc++ list.
Oops
On 29/06/16 13:49 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Thursday 26 May 2016 14:00:55 Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
[Sorry for the large recipient list, I wasn't sure who of C++ and x86
maintainers should approve this]
Hi,
29_atomics/atomic/65913.cc test in libstdc++ is a runtime test that only
rely on
On 29/06/16 13:49 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
Please include the libstdc++ list, they don't all read the other list.
And the documentation clearly says (in two places) that all libstdc++
patches must go to the libstdc++ list.
Please include the libstdc++ list, they don't all read the other list. Also,
the patch or a link to the patch helps the reviewers find the patch, otherwise
even finding the patch to review can be hard for some folks.
Seems reasonable to me, though, I'd normally punt to the atomic people.
> On
Ping?
Best regards,
Thomas
On Thursday 02 June 2016 14:34:03 Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> Ping?
>
> On Thursday 26 May 2016 14:00:55 Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> > [Sorry for the large recipient list, I wasn't sure who of C++ and x86
> > maintainers should approve this]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
