A direct cherry-pick of the trunk change
(db7548a2771bbf34cf7430712af7ac670b429958 / r259969) applies fine to
today's 8 branch and has no check-gcc regressions on x86_64-linux-gnu.
OK to commit to 8 branch now?
Thanks,
Roland
Committed.
Thanks,
Roland
Anybody want to look at this?
It rebases identically on today's trunk. I'd like to commit it to
trunk and gcc-7-branch and gcc-6-branch ideally.
Thanks,
Roland
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> ping?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> This fi
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> You are recreating the conditions used in
> default_elf_asm_named_section, so I think you ought to have comments
> referring back and forth between them.
>
> This is OK with the two additional comments.
Thanks for the review. I've added
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Still OK, but it should wait until after the tree is back in stage 1.
I've been hoping to get this fixed on stable branches (6, 7).
Are you saying that this bug can only be fixed in 9?
Or will it be OK to backport to 6, 7, and 8 once stag
OK. I'll come back in stage 1.
Thanks,
Roland
I'm back for stage 1!
The same patch from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01549.html
rebases cleanly and I didn't change anything but the date on the log entry
since what I posted there. The fresh rebase is on the roland/pr77609 git
branch for your convenience.
It has no check-gcc
ping
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:42 AM Roland McGrath wrote:
> I'm back for stage 1!
> The same patch from
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01549.html
> rebases cleanly and I didn't change anything but the date on the log entry
> since what I posted there. The fresh rebase is on the
Committed.
Thanks,
Roland
