On 04/23/2014 04:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a
change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have
tested it. Havin
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> >
> >>> While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a
> >>> change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have
> >>> tested it. Having three reviewers will as
On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>>> While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a
>>> change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have
>>> tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved
>>> quickly.
>> Works f
On 04/22/2014 03:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
Richi,
David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
reviewers
for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
reviewers for wide-int in the long
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>Richi,
>
>David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
>reviewers
>for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
>
>reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think tha
Richi,
David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing reviewers
for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be useful
to make Richard Sandiford, Mike Stump and myself reviewers at least
