From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56535 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2019 15:08:08 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 56515 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jun 2019 15:08:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:539 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:08:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3293A223873; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.116.63] (ovpn-116-63.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.63]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FF011001B00; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/11] OpenRISC orfpx64a32 and openrisc spec 1.3 support To: Stafford Horne , GDB patches , GNU Binutils Cc: Andrey Bacherov , Andrew Burgess , Richard Henderson , Openrisc References: <20190608213225.3230-1-shorne@gmail.com> From: Nick Clifton Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <36502dad-1be9-294f-a2f4-6ab67f76f3ac@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190608213225.3230-1-shorne@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 Hi Stafford, > Its been a while since v2, but we have been busy changing direction a bit. > Instead of just adding the orfpx64a32 extension support we have created a new > architecture specification [0] and this series includes some of those changes. I am just starting to look at this patch series, but I need to check one thing first. The number suggests that there should be 11 patches, but I see only 9. Are two missing, or is the numbering wrong ? Cheers Nick