On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > I only checked executables, these tests do not produce any. I didn't
> > think of checking tests that do not produce executables, because they do
> > not check run-time validity of code produced. These three tests you've
> > referred to all p
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> > I have regression-tested this change with the mips-linux-gnu target and
>> > the mips32r2/o32 multilib. I have also verified that the instructions
>> > affected were absent across the binaries produced by the te
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > I have regression-tested this change with the mips-linux-gnu target and
> > the mips32r2/o32 multilib. I have also verified that the instructions
> > affected were absent across the binaries produced by the testsuite before
> > applying this c
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> I have regression-tested this change with the mips-linux-gnu target and
> the mips32r2/o32 multilib. I have also verified that the instructions
> affected were absent across the binaries produced by the testsuite before
> applying this change and present afterwar
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > Maciej, in that case, the rest of the patch is OK for 4.9, thanks.
>
> I will apply in due course then, thanks for your review.
Regrettably after further investigation I have realised the change I
proposed inadvertently enables more than just
