From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82956 invoked by alias); 8 May 2015 19:20:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 82944 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2015 19:20:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f50.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f50.google.com) (74.125.82.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 08 May 2015 19:20:49 +0000 Received: by wgic8 with SMTP id c8so54506869wgi.1 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.160.145 with SMTP id xk17mr580889wib.85.1431112846492; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from android-4c5a376a18c0e957.fritz.box (p4FE9DC30.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.233.220.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r9sm9684321wjo.26.2015.05.08.12.20.44 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 May 2015 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <554D04FA.60201@redhat.com> References: <554C0494.7090708@redhat.com> <554D04FA.60201@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [patch 3/10] debug-early merge: C++ front-end From: Richard Biener Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 19:20:00 -0000 To: Aldy Hernandez CC: gcc-patches ,jason merrill Message-ID: <08D4ECE8-9250-4D9F-AFBF-F35FB23DE52E@gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00743.txt.bz2 On May 8, 2015 8:48:26 PM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >On 05/08/2015 04:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez >wrote: >>> >> >> Maybe you can split out the Java aliases stuff (that annoyed me >multiple times >> when trying to refactor the FE - middle-end interface). It looks >> unrelated enough. >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> > >Jason already reviewed that part going into the branch (and most of my >changes actually). I'd rather concentrate on the other bits, while I'm > >under fire here :). But if Jason also wants it split up, I'll oblige. Just meant that it's making the changes smaller if those bits can be checked in independently. If that's just a hassle... Richard. >Aldy