sh64-elf (SH5) port: directory opcodes
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva@redhat.com
Sun Feb 10 20:30:00 GMT 2002
On Feb 10, 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > On Feb 8, 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
>> > > 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.
>>
>> I have no objections to that patch.
> (That is,
> <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-02/msg00277.html>)
> ... except that it broke sh-elf, because the corresponding bfd
> changes weren't done. When linking objdump:
Ugh! I always get the dependency between opcodes and bfd wrong :-( I
had built all-opcodes after installing my patch, but since bfd depends
on opcodes, and not the other way round as I always think it to be the
case, I didn't get that far :-(
My apologies. Thanks for cleaning up after my mistake.
--
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