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: mudflap versus cgraph

From: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Frank Eigler <fche at redhat dot com>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Date: 22 Jun 2004 00:05:51 -0700
Subject: Re: mudflap versus cgraph
References: <87hdt48c1f.fsf@taltos.codesourcery.com><40D7BE00.9080407@codesourcery.com><878yeg8649.fsf@taltos.codesourcery.com>

Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > Is this for your IMA fixes?  It might be that mudflap has to be
> > broken for a while, while IMA gets fixed...
> 
> Yeah, it's for IMA.  If it's mudflap's turn to be broken for awhile I
> don't have a problem with that, but I didn't want to spring it on
> people with no notice.

I *do* have a problem with that.

Zack, if you cannot make your C frontend changes work for everything,
please back them out of mainline and work on them on a branch.  At
this point I have no faith that when you fix mudflap, you won't break
something else.

References:
- mudflap versus cgraph
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: mudflap versus cgraph
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: mudflap versus cgraph
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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