On December 4, 2015 12:44:57 PM CST, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 12/02/2015 03:23 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
>> Am Wednesday 02 December 2015, 08:13:20 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
>>>
>>> On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law
>>> wrote:
On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
> Am Monday 30 Nov
On 12/02/2015 03:23 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Am Wednesday 02 December 2015, 08:13:20 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law
wrote:
On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wr
Am Wednesday 02 December 2015, 08:13:20 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
>
> On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law wrote:
> >On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
> >> Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law:
> >>> On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
> Could someone with
On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
>> Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law:
>>> On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Could someone with write access please commit the patch?
The paperwork with the FSF has
On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Could someone with write access please commit the patch?
The paperwork with the FSF has gone through. If something else is missing,
please tell me.
I won't
Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law:
> On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
> > Could someone with write access please commit the patch?
> > The paperwork with the FSF has gone through. If something else is missing,
> > please tell me.
> > I won't be available next week.
> I
On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Could someone with write access please commit the patch?
The paperwork with the FSF has gone through. If something else is missing,
please tell me.
I won't be available next week.
I'm not sure what you built your patches again, but I can't apply them
to
Could someone with write access please commit the patch?
The paperwork with the FSF has gone through. If something else is missing,
please tell me.
I won't be available next week.
Best regards,
Jan
Am Tuesday 24 November 2015, 08:47:49 schrieb Jan Sommer:
> It has gone through.
> That was wh
> > > > Your ChangeLog entry is not in the proper format, see sections 6.8.1
> > > > and
> > > > 6.8.2 from http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html
> > > >
> > > > The diff itself is OK.
> > >
> > > Ok, fixed this. See the new diff below.
> >
> > This is now OK, you can go ahead and com
Am Tuesday 03 November 2015, 20:13:50 schrieb Arnaud Charlet:
> > > Your ChangeLog entry is not in the proper format, see sections 6.8.1 and
> > > 6.8.2 from http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html
> > >
> > > The diff itself is OK.
> >
> > Ok, fixed this. See the new diff below.
>
> Th
> > Your ChangeLog entry is not in the proper format, see sections 6.8.1 and
> > 6.8.2 from http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html
> >
> > The diff itself is OK.
>
> Ok, fixed this. See the new diff below.
This is now OK, you can go ahead and commit it.
> > You can use svn merge to me
Am Tuesday 03 November 2015, 18:10:53 schrieb Arnaud Charlet:
> > Let's try again. This time I made the diff against trunk with the changes
> > Sebastian recommended, included a ChangeLog and used svn-diff.
> > If this patch goes through, please let me know how the backporting works.
>
> Your Chan
> Let's try again. This time I made the diff against trunk with the changes
> Sebastian recommended, included a ChangeLog and used svn-diff.
> If this patch goes through, please let me know how the backporting works.
Your ChangeLog entry is not in the proper format, see sections 6.8.1 and
6.8.2 fr
Am Monday 02 November 2015, 12:39:57 schrieb Sebastian Huber:
>
> On 31/10/15 16:47, Jan Sommer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs such
> > as pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just reserving the
> > right amount of me
On 31/10/15 16:47, Jan Sommer wrote:
Hi,
This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs such as
pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just reserving the right
amount of memory.
It is only rtems related and essentially copies the way how the types are
d
> Ok, I don't have time today. I will make a patch against trunk and will try
> again with the correct format tomorrow.
> How does the backporting work?
> It's my first contribution to gcc, so bare with me ;-)
See https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for details.
Arno
Am Saturday 31 October 2015, 18:11:47 schrieb Arnaud Charlet:
> > > This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs
> > > such as pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just
> > > reserving the right amount of memory.
> > > It is only rtems related and essential
On 10/31/2015 10:47 AM, Jan Sommer wrote:
Hi,
This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs such as
pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just reserving the right
amount of memory.
It is only rtems related and essentially copies the way how the types are
> > This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs
> > such as pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just
> > reserving the right amount of memory.
> > It is only rtems related and essentially copies the way how the types are
> > defined in s-osinte-linux.ads.
Am Saturday 31 October 2015, 16:47:35 schrieb Jan Sommer:
> Hi,
>
> This patch changes the Ada-declaration of the pthread-related structs such as
> pthread_attr_t from a field-equivalent declaration to just reserving the
> right amount of memory.
> It is only rtems related and essentially copies
20 matches
Mail list logo
