Re: Is it me, or is git.sv.gnu.org down?

2013-10-04 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 10/04/2013 05:55 PM, Bruce Korb wrote: > $ git pull > ssh: Could not resolve hostname git.savannah.gnu.org: Name or service not > known > fatal: Could not read from remote repository. > > Please make sure you have the correct access rights > and the repository exists. > $ ping -c2 git.sv.gnu.o

Is it me, or is git.sv.gnu.org down?

2013-10-04 Thread Bruce Korb
$ git pull ssh: Could not resolve hostname git.savannah.gnu.org: Name or service not known fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. $ ping -c2 git.sv.gnu.org PING git.sv.gnu.org (140.186.70.72) 56(84) bytes of dat

Re: [PATCH] verify: new macro 'assume'

2013-10-04 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 10/04/2013 04:05 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> This minor point is becoming less important with time, as GCC 4.5-or-later will eventually become ubiquitous. >> Which might be an argument to take the simplest and most portable >> approach from this dwindling case. > > Hm

Re: [PATCH] verify: new macro 'assume'

2013-10-04 Thread Paul Eggert
Pádraig Brady wrote: >> This minor point is becoming less important with time, as GCC >> > 4.5-or-later will eventually become ubiquitous. > Which might be an argument to take the simplest and most portable > approach from this dwindling case. Hmm, well, a downside is that it would cause verify.h

Re: [PATCH] verify: new macro 'assume'

2013-10-04 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 10/04/2013 06:59 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 10/03/13 01:29, Pádraig Brady wrote: > >> Minor point. Would it be more general to use !defined NDEBUG, >> since this is a runtime operation very similar to assert() >> and that honors NDEBUG. Also, I don't suppose assert() is a more >> portable equ