On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > OK, though for the libiberty patch it would be good if someone can find
> > the make-obstacks-texi.sh script referred to in libiberty.texi, check it
> > in and get obstacks.texi exactly in sync with the output of that script
> >
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
OK, though for the libiberty patch it would be good if someone can find
the make-obstacks-texi.sh script referred to in libiberty.texi, check it
in and get obstacks.texi exactly in sync with the output of that script
run on current glibc sources.
I couldn't find it, but I
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01106.html
OK, though for the libiberty patch it would be good if someone can find
the make-obstacks-texi.sh script referred to in libiberty.texi, check it
in and get obstacks.texi exactly in sync with the o
* PING * – The patch is rather simple and on the verge to be obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01106.html
Tobias
Tobias Burnus wrote:
(The attachment contains my original patch (simple rediff) and
Andreas' follow-up patch for libiberty.)
Tobias
Tobias Burnus wrote:
This
* PING *
(The attachment contains my original patch (simple rediff) and Andreas'
follow-up patch for libiberty.)
Tobias
Tobias Burnus wrote:
This is a follow up to Jakub's patch.
With texinfo 5.0 one gets a bunch of warnings. This patch reduces the
number of warnings – but there are still
Tobias Burnus writes:
> PS: I tried the following libiberty patch; it fixes a warning with texinfo
> 5.0. But I do not include it as it fails for some reason with an error
> with texinfo 4.13:
> ../../libiberty/libiberty.texi:250: Prev field of node `Functions' not
> pointed to.
> ../../libiberty
