gcc cover wasn't a policy proposal (was Re: PLEASE, ENOUGH)

1999-09-09 Thread Raul Miller
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 07:18:05AM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote: > perl invocation per gcc invocation?? You Better Let Users Turn It OFF. > Do not depend on everyone wanting it, whatever it does (did you notice > that: I don't KNOW what it does, nor do I CARE.) > > You can consider this a second SO LONG

Re: PLEASE, ENOUGH

1999-09-09 Thread Aaron Van Couwenberghe
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 07:18:05AM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote: > perl invocation per gcc invocation?? You Better Let Users Turn It OFF. > Do not depend on everyone wanting it, whatever it does (did you notice > that: I don't KNOW what it does, nor do I CARE.) > > You can consider this a second SO LONG

Re: PLEASE, ENOUGH

1999-09-09 Thread Jim Lynch
perl invocation per gcc invocation?? You Better Let Users Turn It OFF. Do not depend on everyone wanting it, whatever it does (did you notice that: I don't KNOW what it does, nor do I CARE.) You can consider this a second SO LONG AS it can be turned off. If not and you force me to use it, then I n

PLEASE, ENOUGH

1999-09-09 Thread Aaron Van Couwenberghe
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 07:15:16AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 07:07:15AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Umm, how do you see your hack as a speed gain when it requires every > > > invocation of gcc to also inv