* Naveen H. S wrote on Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:44:40AM CEST:
> >> Nick, Naveen, the diff between the GCC and the src commits is this;
> >> which variant is correct?
> >> -noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libgloss ${libgcj}"
> >> +noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs ${libgcj}"
>
> The following v
Hi,
>> Nick, Naveen, the diff between the GCC and the src commits is this;
>> which variant is correct?
>> -noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libgloss ${libgcj}"
>> +noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs ${libgcj}"
The following variant in src is the correct version:-
+noconfigdirs="$noconfigd
> DJ, can you amend your scripts so that the head of gcc/ChangeLog and
> src/ChangeLog is included? This will make it easier to bug relevant
> people.
Done.
> Other than that, below is the combined patch I intend to commit to src
> unless there are disagreements.
Ok, thanks.
DJ, can you amend your scripts so that the head of gcc/ChangeLog and
src/ChangeLog is included? This will make it easier to bug relevant
people.
Paolo
This is how things look like currently:
There are five patches in GCC not in src, four for toplevel and one for
config/; there are no patches in src not in GCC. There is one
problematic sync.
Not in src:
b9a8e4c49ae2f195c2c0c4646a75f33ff926986f aka r162482
4ae8c98f346e631b735be15b09a41a1a043454
Hi Paolo,
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 10:47:18AM CEST:
> I think that we should apply a *very* strict policy of not approving
> toplevel patches unless the toplevel files are in sync.
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone that "volunteers" to fix things...
You beat me by a couple of
I hate to say this when I don't have the time to fix it myself, but
toplevel of gcc and src is once more out of sync, and this is bad.
I think that we should apply a *very* strict policy of not approving
toplevel patches unless the toplevel files are in sync.
Thanks in advance to anyone that "vol
