From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5469 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2008 01:24:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 5458 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2008 01:24:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:23:37 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so1218663eyg.24 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.125.7 with SMTP id x7mr8812966ebc.90.1225243414055; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.66.15 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6dc9ffc80810281823v528118bw7df2ef717e2cf724@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:00:00 -0000 From: "H.J. Lu" To: "H.J. Lu" , "Mark Kettenis" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Extend gdb remote protocol for AVX In-Reply-To: <20081028141021.GA21659@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200810021026.m92AQMqC006955@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200810042049.m94Kn3k8015088@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20081004221325.GA6856@caradoc.them.org> <6dc9ffc80810050737r56b0d044vcf8e8f1368d2d03d@mail.gmail.com> <200810062135.m96LZI0H016325@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <6dc9ffc80810071221r10439dd2m886637a1dc7327ab@mail.gmail.com> <200810121337.m9CDbu7Y031268@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <6dc9ffc80810121517n1581323cl21808a5f99cce13d@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc80810272258m60f6d1c6w54b012ee90346b21@mail.gmail.com> <20081028141021.GA21659@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00688.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:58:36PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Are there any objections to my AVX patch? > > There were objections - just read the thread you are replying to. If > you have not changed the patch, then there are still objections. > I believe I have addressed all the concerns. What did I miss? Thanks. -- H.J.