OK to 4.8 then?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
>> PR60484 is marked as 4.7/4.8 regression and it is reported against 4.8
>> recently by an user.
>>
>> OK backporting to 4.7/4.8?
>
> The 4.7 branch is closed.
>
> Richard.
>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Joey Ye wrote:
> PR60484 is marked as 4.7/4.8 regression and it is reported against 4.8
> recently by an user.
>
> OK backporting to 4.7/4.8?
The 4.7 branch is closed.
Richard.
> - Joey
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14
PR60484 is marked as 4.7/4.8 regression and it is reported against 4.8
recently by an user.
OK backporting to 4.7/4.8?
- Joey
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
>> This patch makes sure that we set the directory prefix of
>> dum
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This patch makes sure that we set the directory prefix of
> dump_base_name only once, otherwise we'd end up with invalid path,
> resulting in error: could not open dump file ...
> This happened because finish_options is called for every optimize
> attrib
This patch makes sure that we set the directory prefix of
dump_base_name only once, otherwise we'd end up with invalid path,
resulting in error: could not open dump file ...
This happened because finish_options is called for every optimize
attribute and once more for command line options and every
