From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17228 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 07:45:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17215 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 07:45:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 07:45:16 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2P7jFWA022488 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:45:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (vpnuser3.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.3]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2P7jDM00900; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:45:13 -0500 Received: from rsandifo by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1B6PZH-0000BD-00; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:46:23 +0000 To: cgd@broadcom.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/mips] Second go at vr5500 hilo hazard fix References: <87oequw5xw.fsf@redhat.com> <87znadvpr7.fsf@redhat.com> From: Richard Sandiford Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (cgd@broadcom.com's message of "24 Mar 2004 23:14:49 -0800") Message-ID: <87u10dnzcg.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00600.txt.bz2 cgd@broadcom.com writes: > And he and I (strongly, IMO) disagreed at that time. (IIRC, I think I > mentioned at the time that the right solution to this is better > testing. I still think that's true.) > > Of course, in August of last year, (unprompted by me!) he decided to > stop being MIPS co-maintainer. So, at this point, I'm the approval > authority, and I like my style of patch most. 8-) Well, so far I've done it your way, and had it rejected by Andrew, and I've done it Andrew's way and had it rejected by you. ;) I'd like to make sure there's now some agreement before going ahead and updating the original MIPS_MACH version. So, Andrew, is it OK with you to have a bfd_mach check in mips.igen? As per previous discussion, we'd have something like: if (MIPS_MACH (SD) == bfd_mach_mips5500) ... Even if it's not how you'd recommend it be done, is it at least something you can accept? Richard