From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22333 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2004 15:53:25 -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 22117 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 15:53:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO emea1-mh.id2.novell.com) (195.33.99.129) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2004 15:53:15 -0000 Received: from EMEA1-MTA by emea1-mh.id2.novell.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:53:13 +0200 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:18:00 -0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Paolo Carlini" Cc: Subject: Re: fix for x86-64 failure of testsuite/gcc.dg/titype-1.c Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00533.txt.bz2 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... Sorry, Jan >>> Paolo Carlini 09.06.04 17:40:13 >>> Jan Beulich wrote: >--- /usr/local/src/gcc-3.4.0/gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2004-02-25 > > Did you get my message pointing out that, as a rule, patches should be diffed against current CVS sources? Thanks, Paolo.