------- Comment #12 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-05 23:38 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Hans-Peter, please understand that this code is brand new,
I *do* understand. Please don't misunderstand the intent here. Just because I report regressions or follow-up requests doesn't mean I insist on it being handled as a priority issue, not more so than any other regression. > contributed by an > external friend of the project. Thus, if you spot something trivial, like a > typo, definitely improving the build on your system, just go ahead, That goes without saying, really. I do that, sometimes, depending on priorities and whatnot. Don't expect much on weekends; I don't... I do try to be clear and complete and quick enough with regression reports, but anything more than that has to compete with other priorities. My earlier comment was just a quick pasting from intermediate results from an autotester run in-progress, in response to your request. So, I was able to quickly report something that went wrong, but couldn't verify complete correctness in that same time-frame, not to the level that I'd be comfortable checking in a fix, at least this time, right or wrong. I had a brief look, but wasn't sufficiently sure that it was worth the effort to set up and regtest manually after removing a ")", also considering the likelihood that it was already done. I figured you or someone else with svn write access, a clue and a just-built tree were about to notice yourself, and that a fix would be committed by the time my autester would start the next round and I'd be able to verify any correction without setting up a test-run manually. And even if wasn't so, I'm not expecting (or expecting anyone to expect) quick fixes, certainly not in less than a day at this time of the week. ...and there you go, the autotester has finished the earlier round (with the typo) and has picked up the correction (thanks!) I'll know in about 2h, which perhaps an hour or at most two later than best. If I'm awake that is. So, while I'm thankful for the quick response, I'm not expecting it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39644
