New keywords (string32) for GNU as ?
Thu Nov 23 23:40:00 GMT 2006
On 21 November 2006 23:17, Helge Deller wrote:
Hi again Helge,
> Below is an updated patch against CVS HEAD, which should include all your
> proposed changes, which include:
> - added .string64 as well (beside .string8, .string16, .string32)
> - cleaned up the coding style
> - fixed the comments
> - abort on coding error (if wrong bitsize was provided)
> - fixed up all callers of the stringer() function to include the bit size
> - added Changelog entries
> - added a testcase (strings.s, strings.d)
> Additionally, I did tested, compiled and ran a "make check" sucessfully on
> Linux/i686/little-endian _and_ Linux/hppa/big-endian.
> Could you please take a look at it again ?
Yep, I did. It applied and ran fine on cygwin as well. The changelog patch
didn't apply; that's because the changelogs alter so frequently that there's
virtually always a cvs merge conflict. For this reason, the standard practise
is to leave the changelog out of the patch file, and just paste it directly in
> As a side-note: If this patch would be ok, will someone (who?) take it up
> and commit, or should I maybe ask for a cvs-commit rights and commit
> myself ?
Right, well here's the thing: this patch has now become big enough to cross
the threshold for acceptance as a trivial patch. This means that, in order
for the FSF to be able to distribute it under the GPL, they need you to assign
your copyright in this patch to them. Are you familiar with the gnu
assignment process at all, or do you need information on this topic? You have
to get the paperwork done first, after which you can request cvs
write-after-approval access, or let someone else check it in for you.
The paperwork is a necessity, I'm afraid, in order for the FSF to be able to
legally protect the freedom of the source code against copyright or patent
challenges, but it involves no obligation or commitment on your part other
than the promise that you did write it yourself and therefore it is yours to
give away; also, if you have an employer who might claim rights over your
work, the FSF needs a disclaimer in writing from them.
It's not that difficult, all told, and you only need do it once to cover all
future patches you want to contribute; just say the word, and the FSF will
post you the forms in snail-mail.
BTW, we still need to hear from an official maintainer; I've only got
write-after-approval access myself. But I can certainly recommend this patch
as well designed and thoroughly implemented.
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
More information about the Binutils