From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22745 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 17:17:09 -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 22731 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 17:17:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mms1.broadcom.com) (63.70.210.58) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 17:17:06 -0000 Received: from 63.70.210.1 by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom MMS1 SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.0)); Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:16:39 -0700 Received: from mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com [10.16.128.236]) by mon-irva-11.broadcom.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA05640; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:17:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com (dt-sj3-118 [10.21.64.118]) by mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (8.12.4/8.12.4/SSF) with ESMTP id gB3HH1ER024264; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:17:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cgd@localhost) by dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com ( 8.9.1/SJ8.9.1) id JAA00542; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:16:56 -0800 (PST) To: ac131313@redhat.com cc: "Richard Sandiford" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: sim/mips patch: add support for more NEC VR targets References: <3DE417F8.8030209@redhat.com> <3DE4379F.4030209@redhat.com> From: cgd@broadcom.com Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: ac131313@redhat.com's message of "Wed, 27 Nov 2002 03:10:50 +0000 (UTC)" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 11F2397D146549-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 At Wed, 27 Nov 2002 03:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote: > This is the way it has (ment to) been done for all MIPS ISA variants > since igen replaced gencode. You've proposed a change to that process > so I'm [trying to] explain the rationale behind the current status-quo :-) Ahh. OK, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. So, all of that having been said, do you have strong objections to proceeding in the "new way" as described here in previous messages? (You have the right automatically reserved to tell me "I told you so" if it turns out to be impractical. 8-) chris