Re: [PATCH] atomicity for mips patch

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 09:27:49AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 12:15:45PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 08:49:05AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > @@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ case "${target_cpu}" in
> > > >      cpu_include_dir="cpu/m68k"
> > > >      ;;
> > > >    mips)
> > >      ^^^^
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't it be "mips*".
> > 
> > I've only ever seen reports for mips-foo-bar in triplets.  (The switch
> > statement is only testing the cpu field.)
> 
> May I ask where you got this information?

...my email folders... ?

When I said that "I've only ever seen reports for mips," that's exactly
what I meant.  If other variations exist, okay, great, I'm not denying
their existence.[*]  I just haven't seen them.

Let's assume they exist.  :-)  There's no point in matching them in the
mips pattern, since the defaults point to the generic routines anyway.
If we want to match them, we should have routines in places to specifically
support them.


Phil
[*]  This is beginning to sound like those "proofs for and against the
existence of the Unix system administrator" that spoof all the classical
proofs for/against the existence of God.  Really hilarious stuff.

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams