From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-342054-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21131 invoked by alias); 22 May 2013 03:29:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21121 invoked by uid 89); 22 May 2013 03:29:31 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mail-vb0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f53.google.com) (209.85.212.53)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 03:29:29 +0000
Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i3so954448vbh.40        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.159.72 with SMTP id xa8mr1797230vdb.48.1369193368037; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.175.131 with HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130520213408.GA30353@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org>
References: <20130520204053.GA21090@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org>	<20130520204923.GA25144@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org>	<20130520213408.GA30353@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 03:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAGWvnykxz1G+QFP6yQQ=6OmTc8PC9rV6BSJFQJUowpZxnYLmxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] power8 patch #1, infrastructure changes (revised patch)
From: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 	Pat Haugen <pthaugen@us.ibm.com>, Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg01198.txt.bz2

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Michael Meissner
<meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> After submitting the patch, I realized I had submitted a previous version of
> the patch, that had the wq constraint that was initially for the quad memory
> operations, and also had the changes for ChangeLog.ibm, that I keep on the
> branch.  However, the wq constraint was always equal to the r constraint, do I
> have removed it, and used the 'r' constraint once again.
>
> I have also done bootstraps and make check with the patches submitted, with no
> regressions found.  Can I check in the revised patch?

Patch #1 is okay.

Thanks, David