From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 620 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2010 18:04:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 604 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2010 18:04:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:04:36 +0000 Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437601E04E; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:04:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:04:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Michael Eager cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PING -- MicroBlaze target support patches In-Reply-To: <4BEB0738.5060704@eagerm.com> Message-ID: References: <4BEB0738.5060704@eagerm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 On Wed, 12 May 2010, Michael Eager wrote: > Could someone please review these patches? > > Add support for Xilinx MicroBlaze processor: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01903.html This is okay with three small changes. Please use "Do not" instead of "Don't" in invoke.texi. Use proper markup for -fno-zero-initialized-in-bss in the same. Similarly, please use @var in Supported values are in the format vX.YY.Z, where X is a major version, YY is the minor version, and Z is compatiblity code. in invoke.texi. > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01905.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01908.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01907.html These three I cannot review/approve, but the strike me as pretty straightforward, not touching lots of core code? Where are we regarding this? Is this stuck somewhere? > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01906.html This is fine, too. For the announcement on the main page, let's say "processor" (lower case) and there is a closing

missing on the changes.html page. Good work! Gerald