This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: ELF octets_per_byte
- From: Dan <dgisselq at verizon dot net>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: dgisselq at ieee dot org, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:29:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: ELF octets_per_byte
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1456242622 dot 30661 dot 448 dot camel at jericho> <CAMe9rOpOxZRT72CSfZU-5cPhZfkEst-jifb3nmr9Wzgxq8Kd=A at mail dot gmail dot com> <1456245648 dot 30661 dot 453 dot camel at jericho> <CAMe9rOrOc=V4nv726Psuq+3=mMwBHtQ=+dXUvyJyTopT_-4Dsw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: dgisselq at ieee dot org
(My apologies if this is a repeat message ... the mailer-daemon kicked
the last one back ...)
Can you help me out with the process here, please? I have submitted a
set of bugs, #'s 19713, 19715, 19716, 19717, and 19718.
Fixing these, from my standpoint, is trivial since I already know what
needs to take place.
Should I move forward by posting a patch to this list? The patch would
expand the use of bfd_octets_per_byte--something that other
architectures define to '1', so the change shouldn't affect any other
architectures.
Please help me along here, thank,
Dan
On Tue, 2016-02-23 at 08:42 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dan <dgisselq@verizon.net> wrote:
> > grep "FIXME" bfd/elflink.c | grep octets
> >
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> > /* FIXME: octets_per_byte. */
> >
> > Would you like each of these in their own bug file?
> >
>
> Yes. And there may be more subtle bugs.
>
>