From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7320 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2006 23:05:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 7303 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2006 23:05:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:05:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3KN5Uw6021243; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:05:30 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3KN5TRF001352; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:05:29 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3KN5STq029530; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:05:28 -0400 Message-ID: <444813B7.6040901@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:05:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Add missing Morpho coprocessor registers References: <200604190457.k3J4vwEt004545@sethra.codesourcery.com> <20060419152425.335b3c94@ironwood.lan> <20060419235113.GA30059@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060419235113.GA30059@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:24:25PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > >>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:57:58 -0700 >>Mark Mitchell wrote: >> >> >>>This patch adds a few missing registers to the MT port. >>> >>>OK to apply? >> >>Am I still the maintainer for this? (The MAINTAINERS file says that I'm >>maintainer for ms1, but says nothing about mt. Also, I see no ChangeLog >>entry which says when ms1-tdep.c was changed to mt-tdep.c.) > > > Dunno how that happened; but it's certainly the same port - I'd > recommend the obvious fix to MAINTAINERS! > Should we mention the change in NEWS?