From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19042 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2009 16:06:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 18841 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2009 16:06:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.gmx.net (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:06:22 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2009 16:06:18 -0000 Received: from xdsl-87-78-111-205.netcologne.de (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [87.78.111.205] by mail.gmx.net (mp066) with SMTP; 12 Jun 2009 18:06:18 +0200 Received: from ralf by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MF9Gk-0004z6-95; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:06:18 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:06:00 -0000 From: Ralf Wildenhues To: Andrew Haley Cc: gcc-patches , libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Add Win64 support to libffi Message-ID: <20090612160618.GK3891@gmx.de> Mail-Followup-To: Ralf Wildenhues , Andrew Haley , gcc-patches , libffi-discuss@sourceware.org References: <4A3278E1.6020302@redhat.com> <20090612155405.GJ3891@gmx.de> <4A327ABE.9040100@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A327ABE.9040100@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-06-09) Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 * Andrew Haley wrote on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 05:56:46PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Andrew Haley wrote on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 05:48:49PM CEST: > >> --- Makefile.am (revision 148431) > >> +++ Makefile.am (working copy) > >> @@ -31,8 +31,6 @@ > >> src/pa/ffitarget.h src/pa/ffi.c src/pa/linux.S src/pa/hpux32.S \ > >> src/frv/ffi.c src/frv/eabi.S src/frv/ffitarget.h src/dlmalloc.c > >> > >> -info_TEXINFOS = doc/libffi.texi > >> - > > Why is this part of the change? > > Because it breaks autoconf, and it was checked in by mistake earlier. > This was the subject of an earlier email. I said then that I'd fix it, > and I will. OK, but why not commit that as a separate patch then, or at least mention it in the ChangeLog entry? Thanks, Ralf