From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9464 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2007 23:36:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 9449 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2007 23:36:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:36:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1FNXu5i008569; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:56 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1FNXu36017147; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:56 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ton.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.15]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1FNXtsJ027996; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:55 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 74390378376; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:21:24 -0700 (MST) To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Sandra Loosemore , GCC Patches , java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Brooks Moses , Lee Millward Subject: Re: revised PATCH: CALL_EXPR representation changes, part 7/9 (Java front end) References: <45D34BAA.8030408@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes: Ian> I can't technically approve this patch, but I looked through it and it Ian> looks OK to me. That's good enough for me. Also, if this patch is mechanical changes from the previous patch in order to address review comments to the core patch, then personally I think the original "ok" ought to suffice. Tom