On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:37 PM David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 18:05 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
[...] > [Looks like you droppped the mailing list from the recipients; was that > intentional?] > Not at all, just me missing the reply all button. > > > > I indeed bootstrapped and regtested on linux-x86_64, but it was last > > week, since I'm still using my laptop, which is painfully slow (1 > > night per step), my tests are always a few days old. > > Thanks. The patch is OK for trunk once the minor formatting nits are > fixed (you don't have to bother with a full test run for that). We > might want to backport it to gcc 13 as well, but let's let it "soak" in > trunk for some time first. > > > We discussed it already but yes, in the end I believe an account on > > the compile farm will be necessary for me. > > Let me know if you need any help with that. I'm not certain about what to put under "Contributions" in the account creation form. I'm still green behind the ears, and wouldn't count my current count of 2 patches *not yet pushed to trunk* as anything remarkable. > > I'll correct the formatting of the comments and resend it, and double > > check the indentation. > > Thanks. I said that but actually I am unsure about the indentation format. Is it spaces up to 6 characters them morph them into tabs ? It was looking like that in the code, although some portion were breaking this rule. I went with the same indentation rules as already shown within each function. > > > I'm still writing custom formatting rules for > > my gcc subfolders, > > but the formatter is sometimes switching back to my default rules > > instead of the workspace's. > > Which formatter are these rules for, BTW? > I'm using vscode default C/Cpp extension's formatter. [...] Thanks, Benjamin
