From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23192 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2018 15:45:53 -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 1255 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2018 15:45:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:45:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B315DC0587CE; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A005D6AA; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/12] [PowerPC] Reject tdescs with VSX and no FPU or Altivec To: Pedro Franco de Carvalho , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20181022223242.7858-1-pedromfc@linux.ibm.com> <20181022223242.7858-12-pedromfc@linux.ibm.com> <875zxslcws.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <875zxslcws.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 On 10/23/2018 07:45 PM, Pedro Franco de Carvalho wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > >>> It isn't clear from the standard features documentation that these are >>> requirements. >> >> Is that something that should be fixed? > > Yes, I can update the documentation to make this a requiremnt. Can I do > it in a separate patch? Sure! Thanks, Pedro Alves