On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 10:02 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/02/14 03:09, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Well, I'd like to see both and one affects the other. Doing the const > > correctness thing first seems more natural to me. > > Of course both need to wait for 4.9.1. > Well, it looks like David is already on that path to some extent with > the proposed gengtype changes. > > I guess I'm just trying to figure out how to stage this stuff in. ie, > is it easier to go with the #89 patchkit, then followup with fixing the > const stuff, or is it easier to first fix the const stuff, then adjust > the #89 kit. You're recommending the latter, which is fine with me, but > I'd like David to chime in as well since he's doing the work :-)
I'm about 4 or 5 hours from having patches I can post :) [my automated typedef-removal script seems to work, but I need to write some ChangeLogs and port one of the patches from the #89 kit, then rebootstrap®rtest]
