On 19.09.2012, at 02:32, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 02:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Also, 102-126 are missing for me :).
>
> Yeah, they never made it to the list. I guess next time I shouldn't
> try to send to many at the same time. I should stagger them into
> hunks of 25 at
On 09/18/2012 02:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Also, 102-126 are missing for me :).
Yeah, they never made it to the list. I guess next time I shouldn't
try to send to many at the same time. I should stagger them into
hunks of 25 at a time or so.
I've fixed some bugs since the v1, and I believe
On 09/18/2012 11:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09/09/2012 11:04 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
As promised the other week. I've cleaned up the patch set and
re-based it on Blueswirl's areg0 patch set. For reference, the
entire patch set is available at
git://repo.or.cz/qemu/rth.git rth/s39
On 09/09/2012 11:04 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
As promised the other week. I've cleaned up the patch set and
re-based it on Blueswirl's areg0 patch set. For reference, the
entire patch set is available at
git://repo.or.cz/qemu/rth.git rth/s390-reorg-3
Testing has mostly been on the gcc t
As promised the other week. I've cleaned up the patch set and
re-based it on Blueswirl's areg0 patch set. For reference, the
entire patch set is available at
git://repo.or.cz/qemu/rth.git rth/s390-reorg-3
Testing has mostly been on the gcc testsuite, where the execute
test failures are reduce
