On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
> > seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
>
> The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
> is established procedure [0] that pa
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 02:57:26AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I didn't intend for it to be reviewed; I just asked if this was
> the kind of thing that was asked for. Writing a good patch for
> this was far more work (esp. writing a testcase that covers
> all cases). I have one in the work
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On 2 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
I didn't intend for it to be revi
On 2 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
> seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
is established procedure [0] that patches failing
Synopsis: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Sun Feb 2 22:54:20 2003
State-Changed-Why:
Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/9072'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: c
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
>Arrival-Date: Fri Dec 27
6 matches
Mail list logo
