On 10/3/2013 5:10 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Joern Rennecke wrote:
From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
"release" here incl
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
> without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
> sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
"release" here includes availability of a development version i
Quoting Gerald Pfeifer :
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Joern Rennecke wrote:
From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
We are sure we don't want 4.9.0 to be rel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>> From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
>>> without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
>>> sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
>> We are sure we don't want 4.9.0 to be released this year
Quoting Jakub Jelinek :
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:05:14AM -0400, Joern Rennecke wrote:
From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
We are sure we don'
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 06:05:14AM -0400, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> From my understanding, the condition for adding the current Copyright year
> without a source code change is to have a release in that year. Are we
> sure 4.9.0 will be released this year?
We are sure we don't want 4.9.0 to be rele
Quoting Jakub Jelinek :
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:22:38PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>- The Copyright years should be 2013 in every new file. Or has this
>>port been released before?
>
>The port has been available via git for quite a while:
>https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processor
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:22:38PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>- The Copyright years should be 2013 in every new file. Or has this
> >>port been released before?
> >
> >The port has been available via git for quite a while:
> >https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/gcc
> Right. Wa
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting Diego Novillo :
>
>> No need to mark struct arc_frame_info with GTY. It contains no pointers.
>
>
> That's not quite how it works. machine_function needs GTY. It uses
> arc_frame_info, hence arc_frame_info also needs GTY.
Gah, you'
On 10/01/13 15:26, Joern Rennecke wrote:
I have finished reading through these patches. They are OK to commit.
The changes indicated below are minor. Ideally, you'd address them
before committing the patch, but if it's easier to do it post-commit,
that's OK too.
Oops, I've already started my
Quoting Diego Novillo :
No need to mark struct arc_frame_info with GTY. It contains no pointers.
That's not quite how it works. machine_function needs GTY. It uses
arc_frame_info, hence arc_frame_info also needs GTY.
Quoting Diego Novillo :
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00323.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00324.html
http://gcc.gnu.or
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
> for review:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00323.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00324.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Yes. Claudiu Zissulescu at Synopsys would in principle be available as
> co-maintainer, but I suppose it is customary to apply for write-after-
> approval status first.
I'm not sure. A question for the SC.
>> SC folks, could you appoint
Quoting Diego Novillo :
I have been reviewing these patches (I've gone through 2), and so far
I find nothing surprising in them. I should be able to finish them
today or tomorrow. Joern, I assume that you'll be one of the
maintainers for the port? Anyone else?
Yes. Claudiu Zissulescu at Sy
2013/10/1 Diego Novillo :
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joern Rennecke
> wrote:
>> The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
>> for review:
>
> I have been reviewing these patches (I've gone through 2), and so far
> I find nothing surprising in them. I should
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
> for review:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00323.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00324.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00323.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00324.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00325.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/ms
18 matches
Mail list logo
