Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
>> that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
>> had each of the sections of the branch approved by the area maintainers.
>>
>> W
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
>> > On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> >> At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
>> >> that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have al
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> > On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> >> At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
> >> that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
> >> had each of the section
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
>> that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
>> had each of the sections of the branch approved by the area maintainers.
>>
>> W
On 28/04/14 18:03, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
had each of the sections of the branch approved by the area maintainers.
We are awaiting a clean build on the ar
At this point we have believe that we have addressed all of the concerns
that the community has made about the wide-int branch. We have also
had each of the sections of the branch approved by the area maintainers.
We are awaiting a clean build on the arm and are currently retesting
x86-64, s
