From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28446 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2004 18:10:00 -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 28382 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 18:09:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2004 18:09:58 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i59I9wi5004457; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:09:58 -0400 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (lacrosse.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.154]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i59I9w022711; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:09:58 -0400 Received: from miranda.boston.redhat.com (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i59I9wl30738; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:09:58 -0400 Received: by miranda.boston.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 2638) id 29EFF24794; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:08:17 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jan Beulich" Cc: "Paolo Carlini" , Subject: Re: fix for x86-64 failure of testsuite/gcc.dg/titype-1.c From: Jason Merrill In-Reply-To: (Jan Beulich's message of "Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:53:58 +0200") References: Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00549.txt.bz2 On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:53:58 +0200, "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... For a patch like this, it's pretty straightforward to make your diff as below, check out a copy of the same file from the trunk, apply your patch, and make a new diff. That's what I do when moving a patch between branches. If you have a lot of patches applied to your sources, I find that it helps to check out another copy just for testing and submitting individual patches. Jason