On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > I am becoming fairly discouraged by the ongoing high-pace use of the
> > central repository, seeing this type of commit pushed without sufficient
> > review period. Are we trying for 0.3.0, or not?!?
On Wednesday 28 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> I am becoming fairly discouraged by the ongoing high-pace use of the
> central repository, seeing this type of commit pushed without sufficient
> review period. Are we trying for 0.3.0, or not?!?
I was kind of expecting you to cut an RC some time
On Wednesday 28 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I would like to see:
>
> - 0.3 out of the door. Shut down sf master for anything but
> bugfixes as of friday 30. to wed 4.? Cut release nov 5.?
As of Friday 12:01 AM UTC? Making it Thursday 5:01 pm PST?
Sure. In fact, tag it as 0.3.0-rc1 ?
T
On Wednesday 28 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Is this for 0.3.0 or 0.4.0?
I checked it in for 0.3.x ... on the grounds that, as I noted,
it's cleanup that can't create bugs. Doesn't change code flow.
And there's no evident plan for 0.3.x anyway; I've been kind
of hoping we'd have cut an RC
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 23:54 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > Is this for 0.3.0 or 0.4.0? I have ~50 patches and at least one or two
> > will probably have minor conflicts with yours. I also am looking at
> > doing a ton more cleanup like the stuff you have done, but I am waiting
> > until a) we sh
> Is this for 0.3.0 or 0.4.0? I have ~50 patches and at least one or two
> will probably have minor conflicts with yours. I also am looking at
> doing a ton more cleanup like the stuff you have done, but I am waiting
> until a) we ship 0.3.0 and b) I get my current series in the tree.
> If I had
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 11:18 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> FYI, I've committed some patches removing needless
>
> - function exports, when nothing outside the file
>uses those functions; and
>
> - forward declarations, sometimes reordering code
>
> The affected files were Cortex-M3 and ARM
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:52 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 October 2009, Řyvind Harboe wrote:
>> > And forward declarations should only really be used
>> > when they're unavoidable ... they clutter the code.
>>
>> It's a shame that C couldn't get rid of the requirement to
>> declare
On Wednesday 28 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > And forward declarations should only really be used
> > when they're unavoidable ... they clutter the code.
>
> It's a shame that C couldn't get rid of the requirement to
> declare fn's before they are used...
You don't have to declare them i
> And forward declarations should only really be used
> when they're unavoidable ... they clutter the code.
It's a shame that C couldn't get rid of the requirement to
declare fn's before they are used...
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debug
FYI, I've committed some patches removing needless
- function exports, when nothing outside the file
uses those functions; and
- forward declarations, sometimes reordering code
The affected files were Cortex-M3 and ARM926.
Not marking code (or data) static is sloppy, and hides
true interfa
11 matches
Mail list logo
