search for: r54245

On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Mike, > > thanks for the suggestion, but this was already fixed by Bill > (Discussion > continued in another thread IIRC, sorry for that). > I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. -bw

Hi Bill, > I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to > test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even without the fix Mike suggested). So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? I didn't test bootstrap, however, but it was failing without bootstrap as well previously. I won't have time to try bootstrap in the next two weeks, though (I won't be at work). Gr. Matthijs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scru...

...I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >> test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. > I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even > without the fix Mike suggested). > > So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? > > I didn't test bootstrap, however, but it was failing without bootstrap as well > previously. I won't have time to try bootstrap in the next two weeks, though > (I won't be at work). > If you're comfortable with taking it out, I'd love to...

...but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >>> test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. >> I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even >> without the fix Mike suggested). >> >> So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? >> >> I didn't test bootstrap, however, but it was failing without bootstrap as well >> previously. I won't have time to try bootstrap in the next two weeks, though >> (I won't be at work). >> > If you're comfortable with takin...