------- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-25 20:11 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Thomas,
>
> Have you written Adrain about his plans concerning his patch?
Not yet (I tried CC'ing him with this, but apparently this doesn't work).
IIRC (and Adrian, please correct me) his patch concerned the per-unit
setting of four-byte markers. Here, I'm trying to implement the Intel
subrecord markers.
> BTW, I think the Intel subrecord approach is probably the best
> solution to the large record problem.
I'm glad we agree on this.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-25 20:11:19
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29568
