From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27735 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2013 21:23:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 27690 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2013 21:23:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL 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, 28 Feb 2013 21:23:31 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UBAws-0002lm-Jn from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:23:30 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:23:30 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:23:28 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UBAwp-0002xn-0H; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:23:27 +0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:23:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Roland McGrath CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH roland/arm-avoid-r9] ARM: Use r10 instead of r9. In-Reply-To: <20130228211607.597EC2C0A5@topped-with-meat.com> Message-ID: References: <20130228010102.162DD2C0A1@topped-with-meat.com> <20130228211607.597EC2C0A5@topped-with-meat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Roland McGrath wrote: > > looks like it should be r5-r8, r10. How was this patch tested? > > Oops, I caught most of those cases but missed the last couple. > Now fixed on the branch. > > I haven't done any testing at all yet. I wanted to make sure you didn't > have some broader objection to the change before I dealt with getting set > up to do arm-linux-gnueabi builds and test runs. If you're not willing to > approve on eyeball validation alone (which is eminently reasonable, of > course), then I'll get my testing setup in order before asking again. I think the principle is fine, but this does need testing as illustrated by the above issue. (Unlike Richard's whole new implementations of some string functions, I don't think there's any need for big-endian testing here; testing for just one endianness suffices.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com