Hi Jonathan,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/02/16 13:17 -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I suppose the patch is OK as it stands, but I was going to suggest
restructuring it so that it talks about the default behavior first
and what
it does with non-default -std= options after that, instead of
vice-versa.
Unfortunately I am backlogged on other things right now and it might
take me
a day or two before I have time to come up with some alternate
wording. If
we are in a rush, go ahead and commit the existing patch meanwhile, I
guess.
Is this better?
I believe your follow-up patch did not get committed, nor did I
see any response from anyone.
To me it looks fine. Did you hold of intentionally, or did this
get lost for lack of responses?
Sandra, what do you think?