-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:47:15PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
If you're going to insult the contributors to GCC's code base by
comparing the code they work on to bf, then I think you should write
better English
2007/5/21, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 2:04 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> I hate the '-b-r-a-i-n [ ... ]
We don't use that sort of language around here...
Don't you understand the b-r-a-i-n-f-u-c-k-e-d source code?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
I'm saying i
2007/5/21, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
> transliterates the logic
> of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
> consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
> functions.
Please resubmit agains
On 5/21/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/21/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
> canonical place where developers should be doing development. Thanks.
Except loop.c has been removed already which has
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:00:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
> >transliterates the logic
> > of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
> >consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
> > functions.
>
On 5/21/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
canonical place where developers should be doing development. Thanks.
Except loop.c has been removed already which has mentioned like 5 time already.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
transliterates the logic
of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
functions.
Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
cano
On May 19, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
We tried to be polite
And we should go back to being polite... He's email a patch
recently. That's buys him more niceness in my book. I think he does
want to help, he just needs more guidance. Our goal is to turn him
into a usef
We tried to be polite but I guess that there are actually poisonous
people [*] out there. How weird! I truly believed he was just a bit
lost/confused.
[*] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
On 19/05/07, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007,
On Sat, 19 May 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> If this message doesn't appear in gcc@gcc.gnu.org and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] as in this subject then
> they are censuring me and yours.
Please stop this nonsense, and find yourself a different playground
from the GCC lists.
Gerald
On 5/19/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes! There is an serious bug! It's illegible, unreadable, illogical,
incomprehensible, dirty, heavy, ..
And that is the reason why loop.c was removed during 4.2's
development. If you don't get that 4.1 is a release branch and is
only open fo
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
2007/5/19, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric, what "reason previous stated"?
"loop.c is gone in the mainline sources. Patching it on the 4.1
branch is
allowed only if you have a testcase that exposes a serious bug."
--
Eric Botcazou
Yes! There is an serio
2007/5/19, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric, what "reason previous stated"?
"loop.c is gone in the mainline sources. Patching it on the 4.1 branch is
allowed only if you have a testcase that exposes a serious bug."
--
Eric Botcazou
Yes! There is an serious bug! It's illegible
2007/5/19, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Please do not cross post between lists and do not send useless attachments.]
> I've patched it, builded and executed, and again again with this patched
> gcc. It's OK.
You apparently didn't read my previous message carefully. The patch is
re
J.C.,
4.1 is a stable branch. Only patches that fix serious regressions are
committed. Thus, your patch cannot be accepted. If your patch is not
applicable to 4.3 (which is the current unstable branch) then we are
sorry. Please, ask next time before start working in a patch.
Cheers,
Manuel.
P.
> you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that transliterates the
> logic of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and consec_sets_invariant_p
> (..) functions.
First of all, patches should be posted to gcc-patches@, not to this list.
> I've patched it, builded and executed, and again ag
Hi developers,
for this http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-05/msg00451.html
you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that transliterates the logic
of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
functions.
I've patched it, builded and executed, and again again wi
17 matches
Mail list logo
