On 18 October 2013 19:16, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> So I think I am in favour of no includes in .h files... It may make it more
> obvious when a file is using some other inappropriate file for something,
> and it is easier for my simple analysis tools to find poor export
> candidates.
>
> I will al
On 10/22/2013 08:27 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
On 18 October 2013 19:16, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
So I think I am in favour of no includes in .h files... It may make it more
obvious when a file is using some other inappropriate file for something,
and it is easier for my simple analysis tools to f
On 22 October 2013 21:07, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I think this is transitional. Its such a mess right now, that I think we
> need to flatten the entire thing, and then rebuild it with some modular
> design in place such that routines and data structures are where they
> belong. then we can consid
On 10/16/13 13:30, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
First, the all issues Joseph mentioned need to be addressed. So first, you need
to ensure it's only being built on x86/x86_64 given the asms and bring together
some documentation as to what's needed to port the
runtime system to other architectures. Clo
