From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32575 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2004 14:48:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32444 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 14:48:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 14:48:24 -0000 Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFF5137A0; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:48:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:44:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Jan Beulich Cc: Paolo Carlini , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: fix for x86-64 failure of testsuite/gcc.dg/titype-1.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00640.txt.bz2 On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Jan Beulich wrote: > Yes, I did. But with all these burocratic rules I'm getting close to > give up publishing fixes for bugs... I understand this for large scale > changes, but for one-liners like this it doesn't seem appropriate. After > all, keeping local stuff in sync with the cvs is not effortless, however > much you try to automate it, especially when the number of changes you > have on top of that is high. Or maybe I just don't know about the magics > to resolve colliding patches automatically... Especially in this case, where your local changes conflict with current upstream sources it is important that you provide a patcht that applies straight away. Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/