From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2694 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2002 10:20:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2646 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2002 10:20:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2002 10:20:24 -0000 Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (unknown [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1042B8049; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:20:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from fche@localhost) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5PAKNV23299; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:20:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:20:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Doug Evans Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix for lsb0? in -gen-extract-word, take 2. Message-ID: <20020625062023.B1432@redhat.com> References: <20020624234746.A1432@redhat.com> <15639.60410.566425.365304@casey.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <15639.60410.566425.365304@casey.transmeta.com>; from dje@transmeta.com on Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 09:05:14PM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2002-q2/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 890 Hi - dje wrote: > Frank Ch. Eigler writes: > > Unfortunately, only "medium-weird" ports are on the sourceware > > cgen repository, so it's possible that a change will break only > > a port you don't (yet) have access to. >=20 > cgen shouldn't be held ransom be Redhat. > By that I mean if Redhat has proprietary ports it hasn't released yet > that's its problem, not the net's. [...] Dude, you are reading way more into my message than you should. My point was simply that the existing ports do not make a very good test suite for changes in this area, since they tend not to exercise this part of cgen particularly hard. A change may look sensible for simple ports, but be actually be incorrect, when considering cgen's behavior in complex cases. This is not to hold anyone back, just to make them aware that "doing the right thing" is not that well-defined in cgen land. - FChE --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 232 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9GEPmVZbdDOm/ZT0RAum5AJ9yd8JOJE2/s1a/J6Nnw157PgLNkACeMhbo o0UphcXLKjvtHvve85RHf7w= =24Ne -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG--