From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 876 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 22:39:10 -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 859 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 22:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2002 22:39:08 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBHMClg29156; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:12:47 -0500 Received: from hypatia.brisbane.redhat.com (IDENT:root@hypatia.brisbane.redhat.com [172.16.5.3]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBHMcr223122; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:38:53 -0500 Received: from scooby.brisbane.redhat.com (scooby.brisbane.redhat.com [172.16.5.228]) by hypatia.brisbane.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBHMco524238; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:38:51 +1000 Received: by scooby.brisbane.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id BF9E315D; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:38:46 -0500 (EST) To: Doug Evans Cc: DJ Delorie , amacleod@redhat.com, amodra@bigpond.net.au, binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations References: <1039041358.28757.307.camel@p4> <20021204225643.GS27956@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <1039043233.28767.313.camel@p4> <200212170353.gBH3r9f14238@envy.delorie.com> <15871.31192.305439.813418@casey.transmeta.com> From: Ben Elliston Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15871.31192.305439.813418@casey.transmeta.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better Doug> place to provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints Doug> about warnings :-). I agree that it's a bit counterproductive to post patches to .cpu/.opc files to the cgen list, since these are just CGEN input files. The cgen list can/should be used for discussing changes to cgen itself. Since a .cpu/.opc change _can_ affect all of the applications involved, how about sending such patches to binutils@, sid@, et al rather then cgen@? If we can reach an agreement, it would be a good idea to update the MAINTAINERS file to reflect the outcome. Ben