[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?)
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?) |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:40:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:04:20AM +1000, Doran Moppert wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:33:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:20:28AM +1000, Doran Moppert wrote:
> > > process the better!! I don't mind if my compiler uses heuristics to
> > > optimise
> >
> > Yeah, like those never go wrong.
>
> very true. But at least if implemented correctly, an optimiser should never
> change the specified behaviour of a program. Ideally.
>
> A non-deterministic merge scares the hell out of me though.
A bug is a bug.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Doran Moppert, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Doran Moppert, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?),
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Robert Collins, 2003/09/20