>Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 15:23:12 -0800
>From: Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>This is certainly unrelated.. gdb (and gdb.291) was not touched.
>Secondly, I only did src/contrib/gcc, not gcc.295.. The -current compiler
>is unchanged at this stage. If this started happening on 4.x then I'd
>be w
David Wolfskill wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:16:25 -0800
> >From: Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Some history revisionism has taken place in the src/contrib area as part
> >of making way for the next gcc update.
>
> >Do not be alarmed when you see your next cvsup output (in cvs mode,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 07:39:28AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
> >Yes, there are some intentional differences between gcc and gcc.295 etc due
> >to some commits being deliberately left out.
>
> OK; I think the following may qualify as something broken that you
> requested notification about:
T
>Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:16:25 -0800
>From: Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Some history revisionism has taken place in the src/contrib area as part
>of making way for the next gcc update.
>Do not be alarmed when you see your next cvsup output (in cvs mode, not
>-checkout mode).
:-}
>I am aw
Some history revisionism has taken place in the src/contrib area as part
of making way for the next gcc update.
Do not be alarmed when you see your next cvsup output (in cvs mode, not
-checkout mode).
I am aware of a couple of minor problems, but I dont think they break
anything But if somethin
