On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:35:56AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote: > Ping? I've merged this into my tree now, will be in the next pull request
Cheers, Peter > On 08/26/2013 03:06 PM, Matt Dew wrote: > > Keith, > > I saw you did a R-b back on Jun 21, did that make it into trunk that I > > can cherry-pick? > > > > thanks, > > Matt > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Chris Clayton <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi Matt. > > > > > > On 06/27/13 02:46, Matt Dew wrote: > > > > On 06/26/2013 01:20 AM, Chris Clayton wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > I see that 1.14.2 has been released without any of the above > > happening. > > That's no big deal, but Matt's statement in the release > > notice "that > > this release doesn't work with gcc 4.8-snapshot" is a bit > > misleading. As > > I reported, it won't *build* with gcc-4.8 snapshot. Once my > > patch is > > applied, it builds fine and, from my experience over the > > last two weeks, > > it works fine too. > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > I didn't feel there was enough time to properly bake that > > patch so I > > didn't include it in 1.14.2. > > > > > > From a quick look at the source, I see that my patch has not been > > applied yet. Like the 1.14.2 release candidates, 1.14.2.902 does not > > build without it when the compiler is a recent 4.8 gcc release. > > > > Chris > > > > > > It wasn't my intent to be misleading but to me, in this > > regard, 'not > > building' is the same as 'doesn't work'. > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
