From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-42945-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4181 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2005 17:39:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 12544 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Sep 2005 16:23:41 -0000
Received: from smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.200)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with SMTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:23:41 +0000
Received: (qmail 8367 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2005 16:23:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@67.122.69.173 with login)
  by smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2005 16:23:39 -0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 1AF83653D8; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:12:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: patch ping
Message-ID: <20050927162338.GA12037@lucon.org>
References: <433921B1.76F0.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <433921B1.76F0.0078.0@novell.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:40:49AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> These two patches were submitted four weeks ago:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00431.html 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00433.html 
> 
> and these two two weeks ago:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00135.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00136.html
> 
> Would anyone please check these and let me know if there's anything
> wrong with them? Three of them specifically deal with x86-64 behavior,
> and it appears to be a recurring problem that patches for this
> architecture don't get reviewed...

I volunteer for the co-maintainer of x86-64 so that I can review x86-64
patches.

BTW, I also have a few patches

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00113.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00118.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00179.html

to be reviewed.


H.J.