From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f4UHbtU07613 for linux-mips-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:37:55 -0700 Received: from gateway.total-knowledge.com (c1213523-b.smateo1.sfba.home.com [24.1.66.97]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f4UHboh07610 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:37:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 925 invoked by uid 502); 30 May 2001 17:37:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-u" From: Ilya Volynets Reply-To: ilya@theIlya.com Organization: Total knowledge To: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: Toolchain patches Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:37:46 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <01053009144307.01259@gateway> <20010530184346.A16307@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> In-Reply-To: <20010530184346.A16307@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01053010374600.00826@gateway> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 30 May 2001 09:43, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Ilya Volynets wrote: > [snip] > >Now, one of the reasons for this is that maintainers of some important > >tools (like gcc :-) are little bit too concentrated on Inhell architecture. > >They do not apply our patches, they do not fix bugs reported by us, > > I don't know about gcc, but with binutils I haven't such problems > so far. That's why I didn't mention them. GCC is my primary concern now. > Which of Your patches were rejected (and for what reason)? I'm not talking about myself, but if you mention it to Keith, for example, you'll hear a lot of loud sound :). In general I think collecting stuff that floats around into one central place will be useful. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjsVL+0ACgkQtKh84cA8u2lAKgCfXYgHdrJ3APYKr8vuZhAFQ9N7 fDMAoNv5rpUtkE5iZ1wMqCTjVGjjdbyR =gik0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----