From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24249 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2011 01:19:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 24240 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2011 01:19:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:19:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 4842 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2011 01:19:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tp.orcam.me.uk) (macro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 Jul 2011 01:19:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:01:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Richard Sandiford cc: binutils@sourceware.org, Chao-ying Fu , Rich Fuhler , David Lau , Kevin Mills , Ilie Garbacea , Catherine Moore , Nathan Sidwell , Joseph Myers , Nathan Froyd Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: microMIPS ASE support In-Reply-To: <87ipqrwyf4.fsf@firetop.home> Message-ID: References: <87y6fa9u3t.fsf@firetop.home> <876302kqvu.fsf@firetop.home> <8739pb1qs5.fsf@firetop.home> <87r5abs7ak.fsf@firetop.home> <87ipqrwyf4.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Continuing this thread from March: > > Richard Sandiford writes: > > "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > >> As it has turned out in the course of sorting out some earlier concerns > >> the microMIPS change needs a couple of updates. For your reference I'm > >> sending the current version of the original patch as it had to be > >> regenerated. On top of this I'm sending the following updates: > > > > Everything except binutils-gas-umips-swap.diff is OK (as one commit, > > like you say), with the changes below. > > It seemed a shame to get to the point of an approved version and not > actually commit it. I've now updated and regenerated the patch series, > made the changes from this approval, and applied a few other things I > noticed. I've attached the three patches separately. Ouch, that'll cause me a lot of work to resolve merge conflicts. I have updated all the patches independently before I went on holiday last week, so that's duplicated work too. Plus there's some stuff accumulated earlier on. > Tested on > > mips64-elf mips64el-unknown-kfreebsd-gnu mips64-linux-gnu > mips64octeon-linux-gnu mips64-unknown-kfreebsd-gnu > mipsel-unknown-kfreebsd-gnu mipsisa32el-linux-gnu mipsisa64-elf > mips-linux-gnu mips-unknown-kfreebsd-gnu mips-wrs-vxworks > > Applied to trunk along with: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00399.html > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-02/msg00318.html My understanding has been you didn't consider the latter a complete change (and frankly I did wholeheartedly agree). > Maciej: I regenerated and updated each of your patches separately, > so if you'd like a copy of those individual patches, I can send them > privately. Yes, please -- that'll save me a lot of hassle with conflict resolution, though I fear that'll be painful anyway. :( > I went on to say: > > > If you don't agree with some of the requested changes, let me know. > > and I gather from an off-list discussion a couple of months ago that > there were indeed some things that you didn't like. But I think it'd > be easier to deal with them as follow-ups. Please feel free to send > patches against trunk. Or, if you tell me what it is you disagree with, > I can try to fix it myself. I guess I'll just send off the e-mail I had been writing but never actually completed. My current state of the changes includes all my updates that reflect the points made, but now I'll have to regenerate them, possibly by reverting yours, applying mine on top and figuring out what differences to the original remain. Oh well... > I'm sure there are things that we've both missed, but again, > we can deal with them as follow-ups. There's a whole lot of important linker relaxation fixes that I reckon were not included in the original series plus several bug fixes. > Last, but not least, thanks for all your hard work on this series. > Thanks especially for perservering in the face of all my annoying > niggles. :-) You are welcome. Maciej