The last of the in_handler changes is coming up. I'm testing it now.
Here is the plan going forward in priority order:
1. Commit to svn head the last change. This change is necessary to
run tests.
2. Fix any functional regressions. I've split most of these changes into
numerous independant
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
The last of the in_handler changes is coming up. I'm testing it now.
Here is the plan going forward in priority order:
1. Commit to svn head the last change. This change is necessary to
run tests.
2. Fix any functional regressions. I've split most of these changes into
The last of the in_handler changes is coming up. I'm testing it now.
Here is the plan going forward in priority order:
1. Commit to svn head the last change. This change is necessary to
run tests.
2. Fix any functional regressions. I've split most of these changes into
numerous independant
And then the last of the big in_handler changes is committed.
svn head now contains the entire in_handler story, which at this point
is the right thing to do regardless of what happens next.
Now it is time for cleanup according to my plan.
As there are no known functional regressions,
I saw your post that the patch was broken. I will get right on fixing
it or revert soon.
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-May/006250.html
Note that I *have* switched gears now on this project to working exclusively
on addressing functional regression and performance
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I saw your post that the patch was broken. I will get right on fixing
it or revert soon.
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-May/006250.html
Note that I *have* switched gears now on this project to working exclusively
on addressing functional
Unbelievable, you introduce lots of regression and performance issues,
push this into head aginst the direct wishes and advice from other
developers working on core functionality. Then you try to be helpful and say
that you want to address these issues you caused. You make the head
