linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Toolchain patches

To: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Toolchain patches
From: Ilya Volynets <ilya@theIlya.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:37:46 -0700
In-reply-to: <20010530184346.A16307@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
Organization: Total knowledge
References: <01053009144307.01259@gateway> <20010530184346.A16307@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
Reply-to: ilya@theIlya.com
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
-----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-----

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>