From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10046 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 18:22:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10037 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 18:22:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_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; Mon, 02 May 2011 18:22:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 4900 invoked from network); 2 May 2011 18:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?84.152.192.215?) (bernds@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 May 2011 18:22:11 -0000 Message-ID: <4DBEF63E.4060604@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 18:22:00 -0000 From: Bernd Schmidt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110325 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, nickc@redhat.com, law@redhat.com, aoliva@redhat.com Subject: Re: Ping^4 Re: Target header etc. cleanup patch References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00104.txt.bz2 On 05/02/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> Ping^4. Parts of this patch >> are still >> pending review, for targets fr30, m32r, mn10300, rx, v850 (target >> maintainers CC:ed). This version applies cleanly to current trunk. >> >> I have seen no comments from the mn10300 maintainers. For the other >> targets, Nick wanted to keep abbreviations for certain types >> and no-one else >> has commented on that issue, though as I noted in >> I think >> abbreviating const char * is actively bad. Cstar - defined for mn10300, >> whose maintainers haven't commented - is also the macro I care most about >> getting rid of in what's left of this patch, as it's the one that shows up >> as a false positive in my target macro listing script (the point of the >> original patch was to get rid of several such false positives, plus making >> related cleanups that showed up in the process). > > Ok except for the changes the target maintainer objects to. I do agree > with Joseph and if another maintainer also says Ok I think we should > overrule him. I'll say OK then. Bernd