From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13121 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2008 23:44:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 13112 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2008 23:44:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay01.mx.bawue.net (HELO relay01.mx.bawue.net) (193.7.176.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:43:27 +0000 Received: from lagash (X67e7.x.pppool.de [89.59.103.231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay01.mx.bawue.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AC548916; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:43:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ths by lagash with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KtWJR-0003nm-Ek; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:43:25 +0200 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:44:00 -0000 From: Thiemo Seufer To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Nick Clifton , Sergey Lapin , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lexra support in binutils Message-ID: <20081024234325.GB28588@networkno.de> References: <18644.12578.173615.825412@foo.home> <1221971049-31412-1-git-send-email-slapin@ossfans.org> <20080924234830.GA18684@build.ossfans.org> <20080929142102.GA2524@build.ossfans.org> <20081014210402.GA14255@build.ossfans.org> <48FF414F.2020206@redhat.com> <20081022201633.GA6450@build.ossfans.org> <49007E9E.8060902@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Nick Clifton wrote: > > > In fact I would say that the only thing currently missing from your patch is a > > set of ChangeLog entries for the directories affected by the changes and maybe > > an entry in the gas/NEWS file mentioning the support for the Lexra. > > One minor nit -- it would probably make sense to put the "mips0" entry in > mips_cpu_info_table[] separately before the list of "Entries for generic > ISAs," with a one-line comment like: "A fake ISA for MIPS I CPUs without > unaligned transfers." I wonder how this will play with .set mips0. Maybe we should use "mips0.9" for it, "mips0.8" for the compatible octeon subset, and "mips1.9" for the R5900. :-) Thiemo