Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-04-02 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > That would be up to the Steering Committee, I suppose. Gerald? Yes, as Mark noted in a related thread, this would be the case. Note that it's not only about technical issues, copyright assignment, and coding standards. Adding and especially carrying

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-30 Thread Gaius Mulley
"Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does the code conform to the GNU/GCC coding conventions? You can find > those on the gcc web site (http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html). Hi, thanks for the URL. Generally yes - although the documentation needs more work to include internal f

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-27 Thread Mike Stump
On Mar 25, 2006, at 4:08 AM, Gaius Mulley wrote: What do you folks need me to do? Presumably bring gm2 up to the latest gcc cvs with its regression test suite working etc? Yup, basically, submit a patch against mainline that meets our requirements and ask for approval. Roughly, all isolat

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-27 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 25 Mar 2006 12:08:54 +, Gaius Mulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Integrating the Modula-2 front-end? > > Hi, > > this would be an excellent thing to do.. What do you folks need me to > do? Presumably bring gm2 up to the latest gcc cvs with its regression > test suite working etc? Copyr

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-25 Thread Gaius Mulley
"Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 25 Mar 2006 00:02:43 +, Gaius Mulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pragmatically I guess it is best for me to maintain a reversed patch > > which can be applied to a gcc-4.1.0 tar ball which reintroduces this > > TYPE. Any thoughts? > > I th

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-25 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 25 Mar 2006 00:02:43 +, Gaius Mulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pragmatically I guess it is best for me to maintain a reversed patch > which can be applied to a gcc-4.1.0 tar ball which reintroduces this > TYPE. Any thoughts? I think it would be better if you make the SET_TYPE a front-end

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-25 Thread Gaius Mulley
Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Pragmatically I guess it is best for me to maintain a reversed patch > > which can be applied to a gcc-4.1.0 tar ball which reintroduces this > > TYPE. Any thoughts? > > Integrating the Modula-2 front-end? Hi, this would be an excellent thing to do.

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-03-24 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Pragmatically I guess it is best for me to maintain a reversed patch > which can be applied to a gcc-4.1.0 tar ball which reintroduces this > TYPE. Any thoughts? Integrating the Modula-2 front-end? -- Eric Botcazou