From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@upchuck.cygnus.com>
To: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
Cc: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com, john@feith.com
Subject: Re: egcs-1.2 stuff 
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000
Message-ID: <8871.923979988@upchuck>
References: <m10WnRe-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org>
X-SW-Source: 1999-04n/msg00441.html
Message-ID: <19990430231500.0xUun4r45l9iuhfjdM2KNepR5Mk45feCisx2Qf3G8IE@z>

  In message < m10WnRe-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org >you write:
  > > 
  > > 
  > >   In message < m10WkA2-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org >you write:
  > >   > > Interesting.  I wonder if the patch got mis-applied.  Quite possibl
  > e sinc
  > >   > e
  > >   > > the patch is old.
  > >   > > 
  > >   > 
  > >   > I applied your patch and fixed the bugs in it. This is what I got by
  > >   > adding "-mcpu=pentiumpro -march=pentiumpro" to CFLAGS. I didn't find
  > >   > any regressions.
  > >   > 
  > >   > Please let me know which patch you want, against yours or CVS.
  > > Against CVS would be best.  Thanks!
  > 
  > I will do that. It may take a while. I am updating it now.
  > 
  > > 
  > > What was the problem?
  > > jeff
  > > 
  > 
  > You left out the following changes.
Err, I beg to differ.  I went and pulled your patch out of the archives.
Your patch does not modify put_jump_code in any way shape or form.  I didn't
leave that part of the patch out, you did.  I'm not sure what happened with
the second hunk since I applied the patch you sent to the list.  Presumably
it was wrong or was mis-applied by patch.

You should be more careful -- I wasted quite a bit of time sorting through
that stuff.

In any event, hopefully John will be able to review the updated patch soon.

Thanks,
jeff