Christian
A general note, please reply to each of the patches with a rebased
patch as a separate email. Further more all your patches appear to
have dos line endings so they don't seem to apply cleanly. Please
don't have spurious headers in your patch submission - it then makes
it hard to , p
On 04/30/2015 09:43 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Christian Bruel
> wrote:
>> Hello Ramana
>>
>>>
>>> Can you respin this now that we are in stage1 again ?
>>>
>>> Ramana
>>>
>>
>> Attached the rebased, rechecked set of patches. Original with comments
>
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hello Ramana
>
>>>
>>
>> Can you respin this now that we are in stage1 again ?
>>
>> Ramana
>>
>
> Attached the rebased, rechecked set of patches. Original with comments
> posted in
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02455.ht
Hello Ramana
>>
>
> Can you respin this now that we are in stage1 again ?
>
> Ramana
>
Attached the rebased, rechecked set of patches. Original with comments
posted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02455.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02458.html
https://gcc
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to ping with a respin of the 7 patches for
> the attribute target (thumb,arm) [0-6] :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02455.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02458.html
> https://gcc.
In order to fix the various conflicts that have happened since, please
find attached the re-based patches to trunk rev #220529 (respectively
from above p0.patch, p1.patch, p2,patch, p3.patch, p4,patch, p5,patch,
p6,patch).
oops, please don't review p0.patch here. This last one will be reviewe
