http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com> --- The patch submission (1st February) said: "That must be one of the fastest reviews on record! Committed as revision 207389 4.7 and 4.8 to follow next weekend." Given my limited time, that is as much as I can do. In any case, it has been our working convention to hold off backporting in order to expose untested regressions. Cheers Paul On 4 February 2014 22:47, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066 > > Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW > Last reconfirmed| |2014-02-04 > CC| |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org, > | |pault at gcc dot gnu.org > Ever confirmed|0 |1 > > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > This seems to have been fixed between r207387 and r207408 (r207389 or > r207386). > These revisions are supposed to be back ported. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
