On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>> Thanks for the fix. This seemed familiar, and upon review it looks
>>> like I never committed this fix:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Quentin Neill wrote:
> Thanks for the fix. This seemed familiar, and upon review it looks
> like I never committed this fix:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01194.html
Ah, ok, let's go with your version, it is much better. Thanks.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>> My scenario about "ANY test results changed" is what I added with -strict.
>>> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before c
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> My scenario about "ANY test results changed" is what I added with -strict.
>> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before comparing.
>
> So, how exactly does this work for you:
>
> +
On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
> My scenario about "ANY test results changed" is what I added with -strict.
> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before comparing.
So, how exactly does this work for you:
+ ( for fname in `cat $lst5`; do cat $1/$fname; done ) >$su
On Nov 8, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Quentin Neill wrote:
> FYI I see my patch was missing these two fixes:
> Okay to commit?
Ok.
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before comparing.
>>
>> Okay to commit?
>
> Ok, thanks for the contribution.
>
FYI I see my patch was missing these two fixes:
1. fix missing sum1
On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
> This patch concatenates the common .sum files before comparing.
>
> Okay to commit?
Ok, thanks for the contribution.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>> Ping?
>>
>> The problem with this patch is it reorders the listing so that lower
>> priority things are after higher priority things.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
>> Ping?
>
> The problem with this patch is it reorders the listing so that lower priority
> things are after higher priority things. The entire point of the routine is
> to list the high priori
On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Quentin Neill wrote:
> Ping?
The problem with this patch is it reorders the listing so that lower priority
things are after higher priority things. The entire point of the routine is to
list the high priority things first, so that a casual user can read the first
li
Ping?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Should not change behavior for comparing two files (expect for usage
> output), and also should be POSIX compliant.
>
> Tested on x86_64 tests logs and test directories, would be interested
> in help testing on other platforms.
Hi,
Should not change behavior for comparing two files (expect for usage
output), and also should be POSIX compliant.
Tested on x86_64 tests logs and test directories, would be interested
in help testing on other platforms.
Ok to commit?
--
Quentin Neill
>From 4d4fa9d094745ace0b6e51faadb2f3ea
13 matches
Mail list logo
