On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
>>> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more rob
On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
>> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has
>> testcases to boot! His patch from last week also
On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has
testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has
> testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a couple other
> PRs.
>
> Richard, would thi
Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has
testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a couple other
PRs.
Richard, would this be acceptable? That is, could you or Jakub review
Martin's all-
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> [Note: Jakub has mentioned that missing -Warray-bounds regressions should be
> punted to GCC 9. I think this particular one is easy pickings, but if this
> and/or the rest of the -Warray-bounds regressions should be marked as GCC 9
On 01/30/2018 03:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hi!
[Note: Jakub has mentioned that missing -Warray-bounds regressions
should be punted to GCC 9. I think this particular one is easy
pickings, but if this and/or the rest of the -Warray-bounds regressions
should be marked as GCC 9 material, please
Hi!
[Note: Jakub has mentioned that missing -Warray-bounds regressions
should be punted to GCC 9. I think this particular one is easy
pickings, but if this and/or the rest of the -Warray-bounds regressions
should be marked as GCC 9 material, please let me know so we can adjust
all relevant P