Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[Marcin Dalecki <martin at dalecki dot de>]

On 2005-05-17, at 11:14, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 03:31 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 17 May 2005 03:16, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > How is it helpful to not follow the rules when posting patches
> Quite simple:
>
> * I wasn't aware about this fortran specific patch posting policy. I
> never have sent any gcc patch to any other list but gcc-patches for
> approval before, so I also had not done so this time.
>
> * How could I know that the responsible maintainers aren't  
> listening to
> bugzilla and gcc-patches, but are listening to a fortran specific  
> list,
> I even didn't know about until your posting?

If something goes in to the mainline GCC then it should be required
that the maintainers of it don't stay in their cave and read gcc and  
gcc-patches
at least. This is at least what one can reasonable expect looking
from the outside, since there are no specific gcc-c-patches or gcc-c+ 
+-patches.