This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] config.bfd: Adding tic4x-*-rtems
- From: Ralf Corsepius <corsepiu at faw dot uni-ulm dot de>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Binutils List <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>, Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>, "Svein E. Seldal" <Svein dot Seldal at solidas dot com>
- Date: 22 Jun 2003 21:22:58 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] config.bfd: Adding tic4x-*-rtems
- Organization: FAW Ulm
- References: <1056077516.3070.4327.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.faw.uni-ulm.de> <m31xxpdu76.fsf@redhat.com>
Am Fre, 2003-06-20 um 10.33 schrieb Nick Clifton:
> Hi Ralf,
>
> > I would like to propose tic4x-*-rtems to be added to config.bfd (2.14 +
> > mainline, cf. patch against 2.14-branch below)
>
>
> > 2003-06-20 Ralf Corsepius <corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de>
> >
> > * config.bfd: Add tic4x-*-rtems*.
>
> Approved and applied. (Although I just added the new entry on the
> same line as the current (ti)c4x-coff entry. I saw no particular
> reason to split it up over multiple lines.
;)
> One question though:
>
> > + c4x-*-*coff* | \
> > + tic4x-*-*coff* | tic4x-*-rtems*)
>
> Shouldn't there also be support for a "c4x-*-rtems*" target ?
IMHO, there should not be any c4x-* target (I.e. IMHO, references to
c4x-* should be removed from binutils, because the c4x-*-target is dead
for binutils and gcc and has been replaced by tic4x-*.)
Therefore, instead, binutils should better complain and abort if being
configured for c4x-*.
Ralf