From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7259 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2005 00:56:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6856 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2005 00:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bluesmobile.specifixinc.com) (64.220.152.98) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2005 00:56:44 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.corp.specifixinc.com [192.168.1.2]) by bluesmobile.specifixinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D5316786; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64 bundling issues From: James E Wilson To: Jan Beulich Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1106960203.24728.40.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:56:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00501.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 23:52, Jan Beulich wrote: > Actually, I'd rather not do this. Since similarly (when it will become > necessary) switching > from MII to MI;I would be permissible, and since, resulting from > whatever potential future > change, user_template == 5 would be acceptable, too, I'd rather stay > with the way I > coded this. I still think it is cryptic. You are right that it nicely handles the 0/1 case as well as the current 4/5 case, but my point is that it doesn't work for any of the other 12 cases, and it isn't obvious that it will get them wrong. At least it makes more sense with the comment added. I guess I can live with it. I am more interested in having the rest of the fixes than in arguing about this one line of code. The patch is OK. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com