Oleg Endo wrote:
> This one had a bug, as discussed in the PR.
> I've tested the attached latest version of the patch (same as in the PR)
> against rev 185160 with
>
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,
> -m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,
> -m4a-s
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 09:31 +0100, Oleg Endo wrote:
> This is the patch for the patch, as attached in the PR.
> Tested against rev 184966 as before and no changes in the test results
> for me (i.e. no new failures).
This one had a bug, as discussed in the PR.
I've tested the attached latest versi
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 08:13 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> > Oleg Endo wrote:
> >> The attached patch is the same as the last one proposed in the PR.
> >> Tested against rev 184877 with
> >>
> >> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> >> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,
> >> -m4-single
> Oleg Endo wrote:
>> The attached patch is the same as the last one proposed in the PR.
>> Tested against rev 184877 with
>>
>> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
>> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,
>> -m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,
>> -m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}"
>>
>> an
Oleg Endo wrote:
> The attached patch is the same as the last one proposed in the PR.
> Tested against rev 184877 with
>
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,
> -m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,
> -m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}"
>
> and no new fa
Hello,
The attached patch is the same as the last one proposed in the PR.
Tested against rev 184877 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,
-m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,
-m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}"
and no new failures.
OK?
Cheers,
Oleg
C
