From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1898 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 17:35:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1836 invoked from network); 10 May 2003 17:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2003 17:35:03 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA24075; Sat, 10 May 03 13:39:45 EDT Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 17:35:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10305101739.AA24075@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: zack@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Add new target: vxworks for xscale Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01020.txt.bz2 Given what you have said, and given how very broken the patch was, I can only conclude you did not test it beyond "yup, it compiles." For instance, any program that used exception handling would have gotten loader errors when actually run on VxWorks. No, I didn't test it, instead taking it for granted that the submitter did. I only test patches to make sure they don't break mainline targets, assuming that the submitter verified they do as they are supposed to. Indeed I'm quite surprised it worked on his configuration but not on yours. It was partly your comment about loader errors that motivated me to get Olivier involved since it seems like there are different configurations involved.