Potentially merging the transactional-memory branch into mainline.

[Aldy Hernandez]

> We want to look at proper patch submissions not at websites that change
> from time to time.  I really don't know what you take issue with, or where
> the difficulty is.  patch submission via gcc-patches@ is a requirement
> since forever, not something arbitrarily imposed on specifically you to
> annoy you.
>
>> What I'd like to know is why I am constantly being asked for more stuff
>> on the transactional memory branch, whereas the memory model stuff got
>> approved without even asking for a complete diff
>
> That also isn't a proper merge proposal and shouldn't be merged without a
> review.  That simple.
>
>> (and I know what I'm being asked for, cause I'm doing both merges).
>> Similarly for when I merged the tuples branch and that stuff touched
>> everything!
>
> The tuples branch merge was terrible, and was forced into GCC without a
> real review (forced by ourself, because so many people did so much work
> and it all would have been wasted hadn't we merged it, but no, it wasn't
> in a good state, and shouldn't have been merged, we simply shouldn't let
> this happen again).

Fair enough.

I don't have enough time to do both merges (cxx-mem-model and 
transactional-memory) before the deadline then.  I will concentrate on 
separating out the patches for the transactional memory branch and post 
them individually to gcc-patches.

Aldy