>> That's sensible anyways - you avoid useless work. So the patch is ok.
>
> OK, I'll submit this patch, but leave the PR open and follow up with
> something to fix the underlying problem as you suggest.
Here's the patch I'm committing (as soon as bootstrap and testing completes)...
-cary
2012
> > (What's the right way to send a patch to fix a PR? I'm not even sure
> > whether you were cc'ed on my response.)
>
> The right way to send a patch to fix a PR is to send it to gcc-patches ;)
Well, yeah, but in this case I was just proposing a patch for
discussion, and using the bugzilla mechan
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Cary Coutant wrote:
> [resending in plain text. Sorry, gmail defaulted to HTML.]
>
> Ping. I'm not looking for commit approval yet, just advice on how
> thorough we need to be to support -g and LTO together.
>
> (What's the right way to send a patch to fix a PR? I'm not even
[resending in plain text. Sorry, gmail defaulted to HTML.]
Ping. I'm not looking for commit approval yet, just advice on how
thorough we need to be to support -g and LTO together.
(What's the right way to send a patch to fix a PR? I'm not even sure
whether you were cc'ed on my response.)
-cary
