From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9646 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2009 16:06:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 9518 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2009 16:06:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:06:32 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD8F86A2E; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:06:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:18:00 -0000 From: Martin Jambor To: Diego Novillo Cc: Jan Hubicka , rguenther@suse.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: LTO/WHOPR summary streaming fixes Message-ID: <20091020160629.GA4713@virgil.suse.cz> Mail-Followup-To: Diego Novillo , Jan Hubicka , rguenther@suse.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20091020145324.GA8676@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20091020150744.GC8676@kam.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg01297.txt.bz2 Hi, On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:09:54AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > 2009/10/20 Jan Hubicka : > > > Note that whole ipacp file follows the scheme without empty line > > after function comment. We probably should reformat it, but since Martin has > > number of pending patches here, we probably could wait for next stage1? > > No need to wait until the next stage1. Formatting fixes can be done > in stage3 too. But, sure, if Martin has other patches, he can roll > them in. > The only patch that touches ipa-cp.c (as opposed to ipa-prop.[ch]) in any way worth mentioning is implementation of true cloning (posted in August as a work-in-progress patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00290.html). Even though it also specifically adds a fair number of blank lines after function comments, it certainly isn't stage3 material. Thus, I'll be happy if formatting patches for this file could be postponed for a while. OTOH, there will be other changes to the file that will cause me conflicts too so I will manage if someone does it soon. Nevertheless, as I want to rewrite a big portion of the file, at the moment I do not intend to go through it and reformat what I will propose to remove anyway. Last but not least, new code can be formatted well from the beginning, that is not an issue at all. Thanks, Martin