From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77909 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2018 23:44:50 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 77499 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2018 23:44:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=person, day X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 23:44:48 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1430783F42 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 23:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-120-162.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.162]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D7AC600C8 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 23:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w1CKTgNt003356; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:29:42 -0500 From: DJ Delorie To: "Sebastian Perta" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute In-Reply-To: <000201d3a40a$e1c8fc70$a55af550$@renesas.com> (sebastian.perta@renesas.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 23:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg00691.txt.bz2 "Sebastian Perta" writes: >>>Looks OK to me, but wait a day or two for a docs person to comment on... > 6 days no comments so far, can I check in now? Yup, go ahead. >>>if the new line is too long > There are many other lines which have the same length or are even longer > this is why I let it as it is. Ok. > Also based on comments from Jakub (on a different patch) I corrected the > Changelog entry for this patch (see below). Is this OK? Yup. Thanks!