On Sunday 14 January 2018 at 20:44:10 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> On Sunday 14 January 2018 at 16:08:09 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> > Hi Torvald,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing this change.
> >
> > On Saturday 13 January 2018 at 16:29:57 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 20:55
On Sunday 14 January 2018 at 16:08:09 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> Hi Torvald,
>
> Thanks for reviewing this change.
>
> On Saturday 13 January 2018 at 16:29:57 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 20:55 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> > > This is a first attempt to make
Hi Torvald,
Thanks for reviewing this change.
On Saturday 13 January 2018 at 16:29:57 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 20:55 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> > This is a first attempt to make std::future::wait_until and
> > std::future::wait_for make correct use of
> >
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 20:55 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
> This patch series was originally submitted back in September at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-09/msg00083.html which ended up
> as https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/817379/ . The patches received
> no comments at all, which may mean
On 07/01/18 20:55 +, Mike Crowe wrote:
This patch series was originally submitted back in September at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-09/msg00083.html which ended up
as https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/817379/ . The patches received
no comments at all, which may mean that they are
This patch series was originally submitted back in September at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-09/msg00083.html which ended up
as https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/817379/ . The patches received
no comments at all, which may mean that they are perfect or that they
are so bad that no-one
