On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I'm posting this as an RFC: Does this look like the right approach?
> Have I overlooked other things than just documentation updates? I hope
> this would not cause too much trouble for branches like the
> cxx-conversion branch?
Yes, this looks like th
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Attached is a concept patch to move the C front end to its own
>> sub-directory
>
> I like the idea... but did you build and test objective c++?
Yes, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testres
On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Attached is a concept patch to move the C front end to its own
> sub-directory
I like the idea... but did you build and test objective c++?
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I'm posting this as an RFC: Does this look like the right approach?
> Have I overlooked other things than just documentation updates? I hope
> this would not cause too much trouble for branches like the
> cxx-conversion branch?
It should
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached is a concept patch to move the C front end to its own
> sub-directory of the main gcc directory. Things like updates of
> sourcebuild.texi are not yet included.
>
> I'm posting this as an RFC: Does this look like the ri
Hello,
Attached is a concept patch to move the C front end to its own
sub-directory of the main gcc directory. Things like updates of
sourcebuild.texi are not yet included.
I'm posting this as an RFC: Does this look like the right approach?
Have I overlooked other things than just documentation u
