From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32629 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 12:29:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 32609 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2011 12:29:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:29:09 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RGrkB-00069y-Tl from Bernd_Schmidt@mentor.com ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:29:08 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:29:06 +0100 Message-ID: <4EA0140C.50402@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:29:00 -0000 From: Bernd Schmidt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110920 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicola Pero CC: Paul Brook , Matthias Klose , Andrew Haley , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, GCC Java Subject: Re: [patch] C6X unwinding/exception handling References: <201108041531.58790.paul@codesourcery.com> <201110101323.00966.paul@codesourcery.com> <4E9C0B03.7070002@ubuntu.com> <201110171449.26890.paul@codesourcery.com> <1318860655.826721257@www2.webmail.us> In-Reply-To: <1318860655.826721257@www2.webmail.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On 10/17/11 16:10, Nicola Pero wrote: >>> I checked the attached patch, test results at >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-10/msg01377.html >>> >>> which are the same as with my suggested patch. >>> >>> Ok for the trunk? >> >> I probably don't have authority to approve this, but looks OK to me. > > The libobjc bits are Ok for trunk. This is just making sure libjava/libobjc match libsupc++, correct? OK if Andrew doesn't object in the next day or so. Bernd