sh64-elf (SH5) port: directory opcodes

Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com
Fri Feb 8 19:01:00 GMT 2002


On Feb  8, 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> > On 5 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> > Maybe let sh-elf imply bfd+opcodes for sh[1-5] and leave
>> > sh[1-4][hl]* the way it is?

>> > (Including opcodes but not bfd seems useless.  You can't get a
>> > sh5 bfd, so you can't (without tricks) invoke the disassembler
>> > AFAICT.)

>> By default having all of them is significantly better (I think).  It
>> would also better integrate into GDB.

> Is that an agreement to keep it in "sh" and keeping it out of
> sh[1-4]{le,be} ?

How's this?  Ok to install?  If I don't read objections, I'll check it
in soon.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sh5-opcodes-on-sh.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20020208/cdd8b857/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer


More information about the Binutils mailing list