This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ObjC/ObjC++: Fix property encoding on Apple
- From: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>
- To: Nicola Pero <nicola dot pero at meta-innovation dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:29:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: ObjC/ObjC++: Fix property encoding on Apple
- References: <F07948F2-25A6-4489-918F-B0AFD79FE86A@meta-innovation.com> <20110225022901.GA18018@bromo.med.uc.edu> <3727086D-6A36-4CA0-B0E3-6376EBDF16F0@meta-innovation.com> <20110226015934.GA27223@bromo.med.uc.edu> <AC0FE2F3-D61C-49DA-BA2D-DC09B325C958@meta-innovation.com> <20110301132607.GA9072@bromo.med.uc.edu> <1298987447.13096111@www2.webmail.us>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:50:47PM +0100, Nicola Pero wrote:
>
> >> Can you replace that test with this one and let me know how it goes ? :-)
> >
> > Nicola,
> > The file you attached isn't a replacement property-encoding-1.m file.
> > I manually changed the lines to + to remove those and deleted the lines
> > with - assuming it was a quasi patch. The resulting file still fails the
> > test under current gcc trunk as...
>
> Thanks Jack,
>
> on Sat, 26 Feb, 2011 at 16:46, you had responded to the same email saying --
>
> > Nicola,
> > I can confirm that your replacement property-encoding-1.m eliminates the
> > failures at -m64 on x86_64-apple-darwin10. Thanks for fixing that.
>
> Can you just confirm which of the two is the case ? :-)
>
> I was preparing to commit the revised testcase, but if it's still broken,
> I obviously won't ;-)
>
> Let me know, and thanks for your help :-)
>
> Thanks
Nicola,
Actually I am confused now. This testcase fix is regarding...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01621.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01627.html
right? I just cleaned my tree and tried to reapply http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/txt00134.txt.
This produces...
patching file gcc/objc/objc-act.c
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Is this the intended change in the original patch?
Jack