From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27029 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 18:12:03 -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 27017 invoked from network); 10 May 2003 18:12:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2003 18:12:03 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA24346; Sat, 10 May 03 14:16:45 EDT Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 18:12:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10305101816.AA24346@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/msg01025.txt.bz2 You were making changes to get the patch applied to the mainline, so you should have done a proper retest on the mainline. Perhaps, but note that this was a *new port*, so it couldn't have made anything worse no matter how "broken" it was.