On 2014/11/21 20:36:08, baixo1 wrote:
On 2014/11/21 13:40:51, rmcilroy wrote:
On 2014/11/21 12:34:02, Andrew Hayden wrote:
I'm not too worried about the approach; it's not pretty, but GYP is
obtuse
with
things like this. More reasons to get the GN migration done, IMO, not
that
this
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/741223002/20001
https://codereview.chromium.org/741223002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)
https://codereview.chromium.org/741223002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups v8-dev group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
I'm not too worried about the approach; it's not pretty, but GYP is obtuse
with
things like this. More reasons to get the GN migration done, IMO, not that
this
should be an excuse for poor code quality.
Anyhow: Two thoughts.
1. It would be nice to have a comment in each of your condition
On 2014/11/21 12:34:02, Andrew Hayden wrote:
I'm not too worried about the approach; it's not pretty, but GYP is obtuse
with
things like this. More reasons to get the GN migration done, IMO, not that
this
should be an excuse for poor code quality.
Anyhow: Two thoughts.
1. It would be nice
On 2014/11/21 13:40:51, rmcilroy wrote:
On 2014/11/21 12:34:02, Andrew Hayden wrote:
I'm not too worried about the approach; it's not pretty, but GYP is
obtuse
with
things like this. More reasons to get the GN migration done, IMO, not
that
this
should be an excuse for poor code quality.
