On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 10:51 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 22:50 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On January 15, 2015 9:05:59 PM CET, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com
wrote:
Release managers: given
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 22:50 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On January 15, 2015 9:05:59 PM CET, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com
wrote:
Release managers: given that this only touches the jit, and that the
jit
is off by
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 22:50 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On January 15, 2015 9:05:59 PM CET, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
Release managers: given that this only touches the jit, and that the
jit
is off by default, any objections if I go ahead and commit this?
It's a late-breaking
Release managers: given that this only touches the jit, and that the jit
is off by default, any objections if I go ahead and commit this?
It's a late-breaking feature, but the jit as a whole is new, and
I think the following is a big win, so I'd like to proceed with this in
stage 3 (i.e. in the
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:05:59PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
Release managers: given that this only touches the jit, and that the jit
is off by default, any objections if I go ahead and commit this?
It's a late-breaking feature, but the jit as a whole is new, and
I think the following is a
On January 15, 2015 9:05:59 PM CET, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
Release managers: given that this only touches the jit, and that the
jit
is off by default, any objections if I go ahead and commit this?
It's a late-breaking feature, but the jit as a whole is new, and
I think the
