From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24806 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 17:06:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 24797 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2008 17:06:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:06:03 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589EE983A9; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:06:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345C098118; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:06:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JU3Fg-0006DS-Ju; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:06:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, David Ung , Nigel Stephens , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: MDI: testsuite support Message-ID: <20080226170600.GA23871@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, David Ung , Nigel Stephens , "Maciej W. Rozycki" References: <20080226161716.GB19531@caradoc.them.org> <20080226164649.GA22470@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:58:01PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > Which "rest of the MDI target" are you specifically referring to? > > > > I meant the actual target, that is, the bits this testsuite support > > lets you test. You haven't posted that, have you? > > Hmm, I sent the bits back on Feb 15th -- I have not got a bounce, so I > assumed it must have been successful. OK -- I'll resend. Is there a size > limit on this list? The patch is over 300kB, so it may have been disliked > because of the size (but then I would expect a bounce). I don't know if there's a size limit; you'd have to ask overseers. It definitely did not reach the list. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery