linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: Adding non-PIC executable support to MIPS

To: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Adding non-PIC executable support to MIPS
From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:02:59 +0100
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:mail-followup-to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=QmXN6RhKS0/S1/XTXrOP6Zl+KiStHwWJlFhVEynpZ5w=; b=a5s8+RTGjm9dn1e4VxtQEJmGh/1dVKndynHMOrj8DVtPfPyfuikIZODnq64UzVF1as zL7zTqjbVjfmnl0XORGxoRMHnzwzDIYCI+BdKbcYfkVU/Us6f2d1G6wtkoWE/UbAS+T2 Xl8TfSQ3fN1xr3towMcXzyNIuvcwtBLe3Dt8Y=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=YZbKp/A7koACVvpypMHopcBP0rV3g5B4iXX1nJV1IWed4Ss4A3Rte32Ob/1RP0Zupa DbpM+0UjAYw9BO6T3ZjUfFeEny9AYkpG8jLTSco1Ap9JrB0VntlshYNZZ7wZ3pst72rI kCTMQiM92ZmA+6pY3a23hk5DwzV6O4WlulvsY=
In-reply-to: <87zlp149ot.fsf@firetop.home> (Richard Sandiford's message of "Tue\, 01 Jul 2008 21\:43\:30 +0100")
Mail-followup-to: binutils@sourceware.org,gcc@gcc.gnu.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <87y74pxwyl.fsf@firetop.home> <20080701202236.GA1534@caradoc.them.org> <87zlp149ot.fsf@firetop.home>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> writes:
> I've been thinking about that a lot recently, since I heard about
> your implementation.  I kind-of guessed it had been agreed with MTI
> beforehand (although I hadn't realised MTI themselves had written
> the specification).  Having thought it over, I think it would be best
> if I stand down as a MIPS maintainer and if someone with the appropriate
> commercial connections is appointed instead.  I'd recommend any
> combination of yourself, Adam Nemet and David Daney (subject to
> said people being willing, of course).

I realised afterwards that this might be offensive by who it left out.
For the record, it wasn't supposed to be an exclusive list.  Other people
have strong claims too. ;)

Richard

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