From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [IPv6:2001:4190:8020::34])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4ACF385841D
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:02:40 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A4ACF385841D
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk
Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500)
 id 2074192009C; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:02:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DA292009B;
 Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:02:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:02:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
To: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, 
 Matthew Fortune <mfortune@gmail.com>, Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: mips: use noinline attribute instead of
 -fno-inline
In-Reply-To: <mpteeblqiwj.fsf@arm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2107261654580.48515@angie.orcam.me.uk>
References: <8f047551a4694778606d615bd22ef619006d044e.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <f7ca1d6a-0134-aea1-008b-d8b1a56709ba@gmail.com>
 <9ae500112d9c23f025576c2443c639ba0d0bbc26.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <c9bb63e1911b04d4d4de7ef3f1f8b11cd1766425.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <mptfsx680t3.fsf@arm.com> <994f86e6-0a97-044b-e437-615cc572c3ef@gmail.com>
 <9c224a13070c22092bd252e34b0f17ad5e550509.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <mpto8bbn3e4.fsf@arm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2107230418150.57261@angie.orcam.me.uk>
 <b8eb3db805d20c52cfe26793f01e4bc903530aa7.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <c8b87a8b8b03f26f44759616816d868d4c2a8122.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <mpteeblqiwj.fsf@arm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3488.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:02:42 -0000

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> >> Sorry, somehow I didn't see Richard's reply.  Perhaps a
> >> misconfiguration
> >> on my mail server.
> 
> I don't know where the problem lies, but for some reason I've been
> getting rejects when sending messages directly (via reply-all).

 Something about the .wang domain with your mail system perhaps?  The 
domain is not one of those we've been used to and must surely be one of 
the IANA's additions from a few years ago.  In any case it is valid and 
mail deliveries seem to work from here just fine.  I suggest talking to 
your IT staff.

$ host mengyan1223.wang
mengyan1223.wang has address 89.208.246.23
mengyan1223.wang has IPv6 address 2001:470:683e::1
mengyan1223.wang mail is handled by 10 mengyan1223.wang.
$

  Maciej