Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Finally got to write some optimizations I meant to write for quiet some time
for libGL.so.
During full rpm build I found a couple of minor things, so I've updated
the patch and put it at
ftp://people.redhat.com/ja
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 06:01:54PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>Thirdly, and this isn't really the patch's problem, it raises for me again the
>question: Wouldn't we be better off using straight gnu assembler syntax,
>rather than the somewhat tortured macros in there currently?
It's a portabi
Brian Paul wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Here's the list of reversions (either from 4.x to 3.x or from a later
4.x to an earlier 4.x). I don't think the files in src/X matter, but
t_context.c and t_imm_dlist.c sure should. IMHO, we should update the
trunk to whatever version of the dlist code ha
I haven't released 5.1 (devel release) yet so 5.2 (stable release) won't
be coming for a while. 5.1 is in pretty good shape though. I'm trying
to decide if I should do the directory re-org before or after the 5.1
release. Thoughts?
I don't see any reason to delay...
Keith
---
Ian Romanick wrote:
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
The patch does have a few issues. Firstly it doesn't apply cleanly
to the current trunk so there'll be a bit of work wiggling it in.
[SNIP]
I noticed that, but I also noticed something else. It seems that
trunk has some reg
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
The patch does have a few issues. Firstly it doesn't apply cleanly to
the current trunk so there'll be a bit of work wiggling it in.
[SNIP]
I noticed that, but I also noticed something else. It seems that trunk
has some regressions [or lack of up
Keith Whitwell wrote:
The patch does have a few issues. Firstly it doesn't apply cleanly to
the current trunk so there'll be a bit of work wiggling it in.
[SNIP]
I noticed that, but I also noticed something else. It seems that trunk
has some regressions [or lack of updating, as well the case
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
[SNIP]
Boy, this looks interesting. Unfortunately I'm about to leave on a
week's holidays so I won't be able to properly read the patch or
comment until I get back. I'm broadly in favour of applying this but
would love to participate in the discussi
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
[SNIP]
Boy, this looks interesting. Unfortunately I'm about to leave on a
week's holidays so I won't be able to properly read the patch or
comment until I get back. I'm broadly in favour of applying this but
would love to participate in the discussi
Keith Whitwell wrote:
[SNIP]
Boy, this looks interesting. Unfortunately I'm about to leave on a
week's holidays so I won't be able to properly read the patch or comment
until I get back. I'm broadly in favour of applying this but would love
to participate in the discussions that will surround
10 matches
Mail list logo
