On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Mahr, Stefan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Drasko > > >> Solution is more common, but the commit history is not clearer. You >> are fixing several bugs in one patch... > > Serveral? Just one and a half :-) > However, I stripped the alignment fix to a seperate patch file. Please find > the three new patches attached.
OK, thanks. I said that I did not see any problem, it was just more logical to me that you rebase upon my bugfix (independent on endianess problem), and then do other stuff - not repeat the patch I already made. Broken byte-access was not related to endianess you corrected, but since it was trivial I personally see no problems. >> Besides, I have an impression that you know what you are doing. > > Really? My previous patch breaks byte :-) access for mips_m4k_read_memory. Whoops ;). Well, anyway, as we say in France - "we do not make an omelet without breaking some eggs". I do not have so much time to apply the patches and try to test (unless someone explicitly demand this). Most of the patches are merged upon inspection and then tested and corrects once they have been merged in the master. That's why discussion and some "patch cool-off" time is beneficial before it is integrated - as we doing now ;). Thank you for your work, Stefan. Best regards, Drasko _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
