This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

RE: inclhacks vs. latest autogen?

From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
To: 'Ismail DÃnmez' <ismail at pardus dot org dot tr>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:15:56 -0000
Subject: RE: inclhacks vs. latest autogen?
References: <009a01c860f2$29583d60$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <200801271936.50475.ismail@pardus.org.tr>

On 27 January 2008 17:37, Ismail DÃnmez wrote:

> I use the attached patch successfully, I didn't submit it yet because I
> couldn't test it with older autogen. Testing is appreciated.

  Thanks :) that was exactly the same as I came up with.

  I think you should submit it.  Since we're only using the same quoting style that's used elsewhere, and since there's no difference in the generated fixincl.x file, I'd think it was safe enough to check-in and wait see if it breaks anything.  (I can't test older versions myself, they won't build on current cygwin because they rely on old deprecated libguile apis).

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

References:
- inclhacks vs. latest autogen?
  - From: Dave Korn
- Re: inclhacks vs. latest autogen?
  - From: Ismail DÃnmez

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]