This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/24] MIPS: Add support for reconfigurable FPR size, MIPS MSA and MIPSR6,support
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at imgtec dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Bhushan Attarde <Bhushan dot Attarde at imgtec dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>, James Hogan <James dot Hogan at imgtec dot com>, Andrew Bennett <Andrew dot Bennett at imgtec dot com>, Jaydeep Patil <Jaydeep dot Patil at imgtec dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:14:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] MIPS: Add support for reconfigurable FPR size, MIPS MSA and MIPSR6,support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9D3E5517712EFA419C6B9C50EDC1282CAA1FA536@PUMAIL01.pu.imgtec.org> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Finally please note that I cannot approve changes outside the MIPS
> > target, but to speed up the process I'll check them regardless to see if
> > there are any obvious issues. You'll still have to seek a global
> > maintainer's approval for those changes though.
> I can't speak for others, but at least I was waiting for a
> repost and for Maciej to validate the overall idea.
After numerous hiccups and distractions I am about to get back to this
For the record -- I have come across an inconsistency in FCR handling,
coming from a regression introduced with XML description support for the
MIPS target, affecting this patch series. I am about to commit a fix,
after the final testing I'm still working on; I'd like to see it there in
7.12 so that we have a fixed proper release before MSA goes in. Code in
the patch set will then have to be adjusted accordingly.
Parts of some patches apply to binutils rather than GDB and need to be
split, so I'll go through the series as they are so that there is no need
to proliferate reposts unnecessarily.
> Also, for some reason, neither I nor the mailing list archives
> seem to have received the whole patch set:
There has been an issue with this submission indeed in that it arrived as
two separate threads, but the remaining patches do have made it there:
> FYI, in case a global-maintainer review was the blocker here.
I don't think so, not at this stage. We need to sort out the general
structure of the patch set first. Please feel free, or indeed anyone
else, to chime in if you like, of course.