On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:15:18AM -0700, Nathan Froyd wrote: > The C++-specific bits of these patches: > > [PATCH 02/18] enforce TREE_CHAIN and TREE_TYPE accesses > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00557.html > > [PATCH 07/18] generalize build_case_label to the rest of the compiler > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00557.html > > [PATCH 08/18] convert cp *FOR_STMTs to use private scope fields > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00553.html > > [PATCH 09/18] convert cp IF_STMTs to use private scope fields > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00562.html > > [PATCH 10/18] convert cp SWITCH_STMTs to use private scope fields > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00552.html > > [PATCH 11/18] mark EXPR_PACK_EXPANSION as typed only > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00563.html > > [PATCH 17/18] introduce block_chainon and use BLOCK_CHAIN more > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00566.html > > are still pending review.
Ping^2. Alternatively, could we have a GWP or similar rule on Tom's suggestion: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00620.html that patches propagating middle-end changes to front-ends are obvious/preapproved, perhaps after a 24-48 hour waiting period for comments? That would cover 02 and 07 above (possibly 17 as well); 02 is blocking some of the already-approved middle-end changes later in the series. I think Tom's suggestion makes a lot of sense, but I'm not exactly a disinterested observer... :) -Nathan
