From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32405 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2015 11:56:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 32379 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2015 11:56:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-we0-f181.google.com Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f181.google.com) (74.125.82.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:56:06 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q58so19851920wes.12 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:56:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.8.98 with SMTP id dj2mr5302270wid.81.1421409363245; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.200.197 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:56:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83vbk70wsz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831tndbgg8.fsf@gnu.org> <8361c72cua.fsf@gnu.org> <83vbk70wsz.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fix a MinGW warning in libiberty/strerror.c From: Kai Tietz To: Eli Zaretskii , Nick Clifton Cc: GCC Patches , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 2015-01-16 12:50 GMT+01:00 Eli Zaretskii : >> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:34:25 +0100 >> From: Kai Tietz >> Cc: GCC Patches , >> "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" >> >> Hi Eli, >> >> patch is reasonable and ok for me. > > Thanks. Do I need to hear from someone else approving this, or can I > go ahead and commit? Well, from POV of the Windows-maintainer in gcc, the patch is ok. As libiberty is shared with other ventures, you might want to get an ok by other ventures, too. I would say, as long as there are no objections - and there weren't any now for some time this patch waiting for comments - I would go ahead and say patch is ok. Regards, Kai