On 10/07/11 17:50, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 7, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
First, thanks so much for tackling this review. I don't think anyone's overly
enthusiastic about reviewing dejagnu crap^H^H^H^Hcode.
I'll review it. :-) The last version looks fine to me, watch out for f
On Oct 7, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> First, thanks so much for tackling this review. I don't think anyone's
> overly enthusiastic about reviewing dejagnu crap^H^H^H^Hcode.
I'll review it. :-) The last version looks fine to me, watch out for failures.
> How do you like this appr
First, thanks so much for tackling this review. I don't think anyone's
overly enthusiastic about reviewing dejagnu crap^H^H^H^Hcode.
On 10/04/11 08:43, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01272.html
So others have already mentioned the name "memmodel" as being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/04/11 08:43, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01272.html
So others have already mentioned the name "memmodel" as being
unsatisfactory... From the list, I liked simulate-thread (before
looking at your message w
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01272.html
