OK to 4.8 then?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Joey Ye joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote:
PR60484 is marked as 4.7/4.8 regression and it is reported against 4.8
recently by an user.
OK backporting to 4.7/4.8?
The
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Joey Ye joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote:
PR60484 is marked as 4.7/4.8 regression and it is reported against 4.8
recently by an user.
OK backporting to 4.7/4.8?
The 4.7 branch is closed.
Richard.
- Joey
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Joseph S. Myers
PR60484 is marked as 4.7/4.8 regression and it is reported against 4.8
recently by an user.
OK backporting to 4.7/4.8?
- Joey
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
This patch makes sure that we set the
This patch makes sure that we set the directory prefix of
dump_base_name only once, otherwise we'd end up with invalid path,
resulting in error: could not open dump file ...
This happened because finish_options is called for every optimize
attribute and once more for command line options and every
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
This patch makes sure that we set the directory prefix of
dump_base_name only once, otherwise we'd end up with invalid path,
resulting in error: could not open dump file ...
This happened because finish_options is called for every optimize
attribute
