Got the documents signed and they are now on their
way.
--- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 11/3/06, Ian Blanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The original author of this patch said he sent his
> copyright assignment. I
> > only did minor modification to his work so I don't
> Brian Makin writes:
Brian> I had sent in the paperwork in october 2005.
Brian> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian> Brian N. Makin
Brian> I can certainly send another if necessary.
Did you send in a request for an assignment or did you fill out an
assignment yourself? Did you receive an ackno
I had sent in the paperwork in october 2005.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian N. Makin
I can certainly send another if necessary.
--- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 11/3/06, Ian Blanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The original author of this patch said he sent his
> copyright ass
On 11/3/06, Ian Blanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original author of this patch said he sent his copyright assignment. I
only did minor modification to his work so I don't I think I should send
it too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00833.html
There doesn't seem to be an assi
The original author of this patch said he sent his copyright assignment. I
only did minor modification to his work so I don't I think I should send
it too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00833.html
I already did a bootstrap and check to be sure it worked right when I
first sent
> Could this patch be applied now?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00210.html
Assuming it's been bootstrapped with no regressions, and the legal
paperwork is in place, yes.
I looked at the splay tree code in revision 106584.
It doesn't appear to actually be doing a top down
splay.
It is performing a top down partition of the tree but
without the splay step. This should cause some cases
to perform quite badly.
I'm pretty sure my original patch does the top down
spl
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Roger Sayle wrote:
Interesting. Richard Guenther's post for the above change, which was
based upon a previous proposal by Brian Makin, suggested that this
patch reduced the compile-time of his tramp3d benchmark by 1%.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00294.html
Hi Ian,
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Ian Blanes wrote:
> I've been recently looking at the splay tree implementation. I've noticed
> that this revision http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=106584
> does a strange splaying. It does a bottom up splaying but starting at the
> root (not the same that
