From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 40089 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2017 11:57:23 -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 40071 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2017 11:57:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=replied, morning X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:57:21 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45276AC87; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:57:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] GCOV improvements To: Nathan Sidwell , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <9d4c64ec-bea3-ba4d-c6bc-760af42850d5@acm.org> Cc: hubicka@ucw.cz From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: <0cecddcc-12ee-8b7f-6e75-947e58ff53d0@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9d4c64ec-bea3-ba4d-c6bc-760af42850d5@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg01479.txt.bz2 On 04/28/2017 01:49 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 04/28/2017 05:26 AM, marxin wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Following patch series improves the infrastructure, fixes couple of issues >> and hopefully improves also documentation of the functionality. >> I decided to split the changes into various patches to make it easier >> for reviewers. > > thanks for doing this. I think I've reviewed all of them, but they turned up in my inbox this morning with funky dates from the past few days. Hi. I thank you for very fast review. Yep, you replied all of them. It's caused by fact that commiter date != author date in git. Next time, I'll be more patient and eventually run rebase that will modify that ([1]). I'm planning to include the simple ones (not requesting infrastructure changes) to backport. What's your opinion about doc changes, should I include that as well? [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1579643/change-timestamps-while-rebasing-git-branch/7352870#7352870 Martin > > nathan >