From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6352 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2016 21:47:04 -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 6334 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2016 21:47:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:47:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62138A23F2 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-4-239.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.239]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8SLkxMm006199; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:47:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Patch ping To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20160928192450.GJ7282@tucnak.redhat.com> <788754ad-a27a-d64c-d1f2-a1f29de9805b@redhat.com> <20160928194748.GL7282@tucnak.redhat.com> <20160928214051.GN7282@tucnak.redhat.com> Cc: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <4afc25ec-f164-f304-a806-a46638025dd7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:32:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160928214051.GN7282@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg02203.txt.bz2 On 09/28/2016 11:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 09/28/2016 09:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> And here are the 0 < var to var > 0 changes. Thoughts on those? >> >> I kind of meant it the other way round, so yeah, please install. > > Oops, sorry, shall I revert what I've committed then? No, I think it looks fine too, although I can't figure out why that one block of code was moved. Bernd