On 07/29/2012 07:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yes please. The point is to allow people to review and comment before
the patch is applied, and some people only subscribe to gcc-patches
not libstdc++.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I must say that I don't understand
why those people don't su
On 29 July 2012 18:15, François Dumont wrote:
> Patch applied. I usually CC to gcc-patches when I signal that it has been
> applied. Should I send it all my patch proposals ?
Yes please. The point is to allow people to review and comment before
the patch is applied, and some people only subscribe
Patch applied. I usually CC to gcc-patches when I signal that it has
been applied. Should I send it all my patch proposals ?
François
On 07/28/2012 11:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Please remember to CC gcc-patches too.
On 28 July 2012 21:49, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch
Please remember to CC gcc-patches too.
On 28 July 2012 21:49, François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> Here is the patch to restore the 4.6 growth factor of 2. I prefer to
> validate the restored behavior by adding a performance test. Without the
> patch the result was:
>
> unordered_set.cc
