27;t accidentally inline such things, this is fine.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
written. Given that nobody is actively working on
making this work, it's best just to remove the file.
Applied.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
2011-03-06 Mark Mitchell
* README.QMTEST: Remove.
[actual diff elided for brevity]
ility for saving results in structured formats
(rather than text-based .log/.sum files) so that they can be processed
or queried later. One immediate use of this is that you can compare
results today with results yesterday in ways more structured that "diff".
Thank you,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
affects debugging is never *that* serious compared to (for example)
silent wrong-code generation. In this case, we're dealing with
anonymous structs, which aren't very common. This just seems like a
run-of-the-mill bug to me.
Thank you,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
email.
You don't have to apologize -- an approval from any RM, in any forum
(IRC, email, etc.) is sufficient authorization.
> It's a regression from 4.5, caused by the fix for PR c++/44188.
And, in any case, if it's a regression it's OK with me.
Thank you
; -fms-extensions and -fplan9-extensions as in 4.5 and earlier releases.
> I guess it is ok for 4.6.0 too.
I think avoiding the ping-pong in behavior between 4.5 and 4.7 is a good
call. So, I think the patch is OK for 4.6.
Thank you,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
but I would defer to Joseph on this issue; he has a much more
comprehensive understanding of the C preprocessing rules than I do.
> I would like to backport this to 4.6, 4.5 and maybe 4.4. Are there objections
> to backporting it?
I have no objection to a backport.
Thank you,
--
M
