From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32144 invoked by alias); 15 May 2013 15:54:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 32126 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2013 15:54:48 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients Received: from mail-ye0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-ye0-f176.google.com) (209.85.213.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:54:47 +0000 Received: by mail-ye0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m12so186855yen.7 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:54:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.123.161 with SMTP id v21mr19162789yhh.43.1368633285639; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from anchor.twiddle.net (50-194-63-110-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.194.63.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g70sm4626728yhm.7.2013.05.15.08.54.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 08:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5193AFC0.7060101@twiddle.net> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:54:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Thomas Schwinge , libc-ports@sourceware.org, Andreas Jaeger Subject: Re: [PING][BZ #15442][PATCH] MIPS/glibc: soft-fp NaN representation corrections References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2013 08:48 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2013, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > >> On Tue, 7 May 2013, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> >>>> The patch itself looks fine to me, but I think someone else should review >>>> it as well. >>> >>> I will appreciate that too -- ping? >> >> Ping. Can someone please do this second review? The change proposed was >> posted here: . > > CC:ing Andreas and Richard as the most likely second reviewers.... > Looks ok to me. r~