On May 17, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> I thought I remembered mail going by that changes to a release branch require
> RM approval too.
For time to time, the RM can close any release branch at any time for any
reason. :-) For example, a gcc 3.2.x release branch has been clo
On 05/17/2016 03:27 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I
can check it in.
The documentation change looks fine, but as a document
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>
>> This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I
>> can check it in.
>
>
> The documentation change looks fine, but as a documentation maintainer only
> I don't think I can
On May 16, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I
>> can check it in.
>
> The documentation change looks fine, but as a documentation maintainer only I
> don't think I can app
Or, you can cc Jason directly, and ping it. His mailbox filtering has him
reading a subset of the patches emails, (those with C++ as I recall), so this
is likely the first time he has seen it.
> On May 16, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to
On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I
can check it in.
The documentation change looks fine, but as a documentation maintainer
only I don't think I can approve changes to a release branch.
-Sandra
This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I
can check it in.
Maybe it would be easier if I volunteered to be a doc maintainer so I
can self approve it?
Jim
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> Here is
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00480.html
Maybe I didn't put enough info in the email the first 3 times?
You can see the default -fabi-version in gcc/c-fam
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch.
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00480.html
ping^3
I put an explanation of the patch history for gcc-5 in the PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
On 04/25/2016 08:44 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
On 04/18/2016 01:12 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
On 04/11/2016 01:41 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00480.html
ping^2
Cc'ing Jason as the most li
On 04/18/2016 01:12 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
On 04/11/2016 01:41 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00480.html
ping^2
Jim
On 04/11/2016 01:41 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch.
Ping
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00480.html
Jim
Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch.
This was tested with an x86_64-linux bootstrap, make doc, make dvi,
and checking the output info and dvi files to make sure the changes
look right.
Ok to check in?
Jim
Index: ChangeLog
13 matches
Mail list logo