This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
- From: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>, amacleod at redhat dot com, amodra at bigpond dot net dot au, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 18 Dec 2002 09:38:45 +1100
- Subject: Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
- References: <1039041358.28757.307.camel@p4><20021204225643.GS27956@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au><1039043233.28767.313.camel@p4><200212170353.gBH3r9f14238@envy.delorie.com><15871.31192.305439.813418@casey.transmeta.com>
>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com> writes:
Doug> But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better
Doug> place to provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints
Doug> about warnings :-).
I agree that it's a bit counterproductive to post patches to .cpu/.opc
files to the cgen list, since these are just CGEN input files. The
cgen list can/should be used for discussing changes to cgen itself.
Since a .cpu/.opc change _can_ affect all of the applications
involved, how about sending such patches to binutils@, sid@, et al
rather then cgen@?
If we can reach an agreement, it would be a good idea to update the
MAINTAINERS file to reflect the outcome.
Ben