From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:14:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.23]:14935 "EHLO mk-outboundfilter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20035260AbYASOOk (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:14:40 +0000 X-Trace: 22493620/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/F2S/$NILDRAM-ACCEPTED/temporary-group/85.211.71.40 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 85.211.71.40 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: rsandifo@nildram.co.uk X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FALSUkUdV00co/2dsb2JhbACBV6xI X-IP-Direction: IN Received: from 85-211-71-40.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk (HELO firetop.home) ([85.211.71.40]) by smtp.f2s.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 19 Jan 2008 14:14:34 +0000 Received: from richard by firetop.home with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JGESw-0004Qt-8e; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:14:34 +0000 From: Richard Sandiford To: post@pfrst.de Mail-Followup-To: post@pfrst.de,Ralf Baechle , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Kumba , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, rsandifo@nildram.co.uk Cc: Ralf Baechle , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Kumba , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [UPDATED PATCH] IP28 support References: <871w9d7nsf.fsf@firetop.home> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:14:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: (peter fuerst's message of "Wed\, 16 Jan 2008 20\:32\:41 +0100 \(CET\)") Message-ID: <87sl0tsy0l.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 18100 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: rsandifo@nildram.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips peter fuerst writes: > what next step do you suggest ? Sorry, I've been busy with gcc stage 3 stuff recently, so haven't had chance to get to this. Have you done any more on the patch since the version you last posted to gcc-patches? If not, I can take that and convert it to what we discussed. Richard