From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107683 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2019 20:19:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 107672 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2019 20:19:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=hadnt, H*F:D*br X-HELO: smtpout1.mo803.mail-out.ovh.net Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:19:00 -0000 From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" To: Paul E Murphy CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] Refactor *cvt functions implementation (1-4/5) Message-ID: <20191213171907.3cda1e78@tereshkova> In-Reply-To: <4f9e3ac3-a6d6-53d8-a296-8f0c9df00474@linux.ibm.com> References: <20191203170540.18428-1-gabriel@inconstante.net.br> <20191203170540.18428-4-gabriel@inconstante.net.br> <4f9e3ac3-a6d6-53d8-a296-8f0c9df00474@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 17458203956392349240 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudelledgudefhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjpdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkjghfofggtgfgihesthejredtredtvdenucfhrhhomhepfdfirggsrhhivghlucfhrdcuvfdrucfiohhmvghsfdcuoehgrggsrhhivghlsehinhgtohhnshhtrghnthgvrdhnvghtrdgsrheqnecukfhppedtrddtrddtrddtpddujeelrddukedvrdduhedurdekkeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhpqdhouhhtpdhhvghlohepgfgigedrvghmphdrlhhotggrlhdpihhnvghtpedtrddtrddtrddtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepghgrsghrihgvlhesihhntghonhhsthgrnhhtvgdrvghtihdrsghrpdhrtghpthhtoheplhhisggtqdgrlhhphhgrsehsohhurhgtvgifrghrvgdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00503.txt.bz2 Hi, Paul, On Mon, 09 Dec 2019, Paul E Murphy wrote: >Is it still your intent to squash the two remaining commits? It was, but I changed my mind after reading your message. >This refactoring patch is still missing some changes included in the >followup. I still think two self-sufficient patches read better than >squashing these two. I wrote a new version where the 2 refactoring patches stand alone and checked that they produce the same [stripped] binaries as master. I'll send v4. Thanks for insisting on them being standalone (I hadn't understood that that was your suggestion), I agree they read better. >This seems to be missing at least the following: > >#include >#include > >Similarly for some others. Fixed (required for standalone patches).