On 25/03/2013, at 10:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
...
>> Richard,
>>
>> As release manager, do you have any objections to backporting this patch to
>> 4.8 branch? It affects only VxWorks targets and it is quite harmless (the
>> patch f
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> On 20/03/2013, at 1:35 AM, rbmj wrote:
>
>> On 19-Mar-13 03:04, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>>
>>> Will commit to trunk once the server is up.
>
> The patch is now committed.
>
>>>
>>> Regarding 4.8, we should've really tried to work it out earl
On 20/03/2013, at 1:35 AM, rbmj wrote:
> On 19-Mar-13 03:04, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>
>> Will commit to trunk once the server is up.
The patch is now committed.
>>
>> Regarding 4.8, we should've really tried to work it out earlier. If you
>> want to pursue backport to 4.8, please attach the
It looks like this message didn't go through; if you get this multiple
times I apologize. I've been having issues so I don't trust that it
sent correctly :/
On 19-Mar-13 03:04, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Will commit to trunk once the server is up.
Regarding 4.8, we should've really tried to work
On 19/03/2013, at 3:38 PM, rbmj wrote:
> On 16-Feb-13 23:21, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> On 14/02/2013, at 10:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
>>> Here's the updated, (trivial) patch.
>>
>> Thanks. I'll apply this once 4.8 branches and trunk is back into
>> development mode.
>>
>
> Since GCC 4.9 has branched
On 16-Feb-13 23:21, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On 14/02/2013, at 10:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
Here's the updated, (trivial) patch.
Thanks. I'll apply this once 4.8 branches and trunk is back into development
mode.
Since GCC 4.9 has branched now are you still willing to commit (maybe
after the outage
On 14/02/2013, at 10:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
> On 18-Jan-13 20:35, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> On 19/01/2013, at 9:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
>>
> -150,7 +158,7 @@ static __gthread_once_t tls_init_guard =
> need to read tls_keys.dtor[key] atomically. */
>
> static void
> -tls_delete_h
On 18-Jan-13 20:35, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On 19/01/2013, at 9:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
-150,7 +158,7 @@ static __gthread_once_t tls_init_guard =
need to read tls_keys.dtor[key] atomically. */
static void
-tls_delete_hook (void *tcb ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
+tls_delete_hook (void *tcb)
Don't rem
On 19/01/2013, at 9:18 AM, rbmj wrote:
>>> -150,7 +158,7 @@ static __gthread_once_t tls_init_guard =
>>> need to read tls_keys.dtor[key] atomically. */
>>>
>>> static void
>>> -tls_delete_hook (void *tcb ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>> +tls_delete_hook (void *tcb)
>>
>> Don't remove ATTRIBUTE_UNUSE
On 17-Jan-13 20:18, Mike Stump wrote:
You are now entered into the most ignored and most trivial gcc patch
contest. You presently are behind the leader, but, if you can get
another 10 pings in before approval, you can win! Good luck.
Thanks. I know it's trivial, but 1. it's not hard to pin
On 18/01/2013, at 2:18 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:05 PM, rbmj wrote:
>> On 05-Jan-13 23:18, rbmj wrote:
>>> On 06-Dec-12 10:14, rbmj wrote:
On 26-Nov-12 13:27, rbmj wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
>>> This remo
On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:05 PM, rbmj wrote:
> On 05-Jan-13 23:18, rbmj wrote:
>> On 06-Dec-12 10:14, rbmj wrote:
>>> On 26-Nov-12 13:27, rbmj wrote:
On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
> On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
>> This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one
On 05-Jan-13 23:18, rbmj wrote:
On 06-Dec-12 10:14, rbmj wrote:
On 26-Nov-12 13:27, rbmj wrote:
On 11/13/2012 10:22 PM, rbmj wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:57 PM, rbmj wrote:
This removes warnings about implicit declarations and fixes one of the
function calls in vxlib-tls.c for vxworks targets.
I g
13 matches
Mail list logo
