https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32497
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Valeriy E. Ushakov from comment #16) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #15) > > (In reply to Valeriy E. Ushakov from comment #11) > > > Created attachment 44668 [details] > > > Diff against gcc-6.4.0 > > > > > > This is essentially the same diff except gcc now provides its own > > > HOST_WIDE_INT_C() macro, so the patch uses that instead of defining its > > > own. > > > > can you please send it to the gcc-patches mailing list for review? > > This patch has been sitting in your bugtracker for 11 years. Anything I > know about this bug is written in this bug report and swapped out of my > active memory, so I cannot meaningfully answer any questions about that > patch on gcc-patches@ other than by referring people to what's written here > in this bug report. Why do I have to go through this strange ritual of > taking this patch out of gcc's own bugtracker and sending it to gcc's own > list for proposed patches? This is not some proposed change that I can > meaningfully advocate (like a new feature or something). > > I.e. what that action is going to change from the standpoint of > communication setup? As I see it, it can only make things worse b/c if I'm > actually asked any questions I can't answer them, or someone replies to that > patch only to the mailing list and I miss that reply (and it's not recorded > here too). And then it will just look as my fault, not engaging in a proper > discussion. Don't ask me, I didn't create the rule... just trying to help move things along here...
