On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 11:34 AM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > > Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:18 PM Aleksandar Rakic > > <aleksandar.ra...@htecgroup.com> wrote: > >> > >> This patch series improves the support for the mips64r6 target in GCC, > >> includes the enhancements to the general bug fixes and contains other > >> MIPS ISA and processor enablement. > >> > >> These patches are cherry-picked from the mips_rel/11_2_0/master > >> and mips_rel/9_3_0/master branches from the MIPS' repository: > >> https://github.com/MIPS/gcc . > >> Further details on the individual changes are included in the > >> respective patches. > > > > Please split up this series at least into patches that solely affect mips/ > > and send patches that touch middle-end parts separately. A 61 patches > > series is unlikely to be looked at this way. > > Sorry to ask, but what about the copyright assignment/DCO side of things? > Is it ok to assume that all these patches are covered by MTI's copyright > assignment with the FSF, even though MTI didn't submit the patches > themselves? (Genuine question, not trying to imply a particular answer.)
It's a good question since one of the Signed-off e-mails bounces... Richard. > Thanks, > Richard
