David Malcolm writes:
> Andrea: I've pushed my proposed fix for the above to master as
> 3809bcd6c0ee324cbd855c68cee104c8bf134dbe. Does this fix the issue you
> were seeing?
>
> Thanks
> Dave
Hi,
yes super! I'll update the patch thanks.
Andrea
On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 12:09 -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 21:31 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> > David Malcolm writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 23:51 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> > > Please add the new test to the header in its alphabetical
> > >
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 21:31 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> David Malcolm writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 23:51 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> > Please add the new test to the header in its alphabetical location,
> > i.e. between:
> >
> > /* test-vector-types.cc: We don't use this, since
David Malcolm writes:
> On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 23:51 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> Please add the new test to the header in its alphabetical location,
> i.e. between:
>
> /* test-vector-types.cc: We don't use this, since it's C++. */
>
> and
>
> /* test-volatile.c */
>
> An entry also needs
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 23:51 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Updated version of the patch mainly addressing comments on the
> > concurrency issues.
> >
> > I came to the conclusions that the caching should be done in the
> > function
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 23:51 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Updated version of the patch mainly addressing comments on the
> concurrency issues.
>
> I came to the conclusions that the caching should be done in the
> function that we decide to be thread safe. However I haven't touched
Hi all,
Updated version of the patch mainly addressing comments on the
concurrency issues.
I came to the conclusions that the caching should be done in the
function that we decide to be thread safe. However I haven't touched
parse_basever in any direction in the hope of having this still in
