From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53195 invoked by alias); 8 May 2015 18:48:30 -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 53182 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2015 18:48:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 08 May 2015 18:48:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t48ImRSt025679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 May 2015 14:48:27 -0400 Received: from reynosa.quesejoda.com (vpn-62-176.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.62.176]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t48ImQqA010049; Fri, 8 May 2015 14:48:27 -0400 Message-ID: <554D04FA.60201@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 18:48:00 -0000 From: Aldy Hernandez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Biener CC: gcc-patches , jason merrill Subject: Re: [patch 3/10] debug-early merge: C++ front-end References: <554C0494.7090708@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00729.txt.bz2 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. Aldy