From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-38718-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5098 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2005 09:40:55 -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 5047 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2005 09:40:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2005 09:40:51 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2E9epOg001749
	for <binutils@sources.redhat.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:40:51 -0500
Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j2E9eoY07366;
	Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:40:50 -0500
Received: from [172.31.0.98] (vpnuser5.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.5])
	by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2E9enUX020120;
	Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:40:49 GMT
Message-ID: <42355F0A.9020502@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:40:00 -0000
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com, Ben Elliston <bje@au1.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: speed up ar(1)
References: <422CE744.7070409@au.ibm.com> <422EF1B4.4040104@redhat.com> <200503140205.47682.stevenb@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <200503140205.47682.stevenb@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2

Hi Steven,

>>Approved for the mainline, but not the 2.16 branch.

> Ouch, that's a shame.

You can try to persuade Daniel that including it in the branch would be 
a good idea, but I doubt if he would agree.  The problem is that the 
patch is too new and has the potential to introduce sublte new bugs 
which are not immediealtey obvious from reviewing the code.  I would 
rather that the 2.16 branch produce a working-but-slow ar than a 
fast-but-broken one.

Cheers
   Nick