Maintainers file patch for M68HC1x port.

[Sean Keys]

James,

 > That's rather contentious. We've both recently contributed to hc11.

We are both users/devs of this port, and are both therefore part of the 
same team. I'm after only one thing: contributing to this port and 
making it better.

 >Most of the addition by volume was from me. The code you have
 >contributed was to support linking in of the xgate additional target you
 >added.

The bulk of your patch was for XGATE support within the HC1x tools, not 
fixes or additions to the port itself. I have demonstrated continued 
commitment to development of this port. I've also spent enough time 
working with the code base to be completely comfortable maintaining it 
and that's the bottom line.

 >(We discussed your other patch by email.) I'm still not sure I can think
 >of a case where a symbol would be created in XGATE space that needs to
 >be referenced by the S12, but the check you've added for that case is
 >likely harmless.

It's a valid and reasonable use case, therefore in my opinion it should 
be left up to the developer. I ran the existing test-suite to make sure 
it was harmless to existing usage, of course.

 >However, it would be worth adding some testcases to the testsuite to
 >confirm the new behaviour.

Indeed, let me integrate my existing test into the test-suite. I'll post 
it to the mailing list, as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Sean

On 07/24/2012 12:14 PM, James Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 08:13 -0700, Sean Keys wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is a patch, that adds my contact information, to the
>> binutils/MAINTAINERS file for the M68HC1x port.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sean
> That's rather contentious. We've both recently contributed to hc11.
>
> Most of the addition by volume was from me. The code you have
> contributed was to support linking in of the xgate additional target you
> added.
>
> (We discussed your other patch by email.) I'm still not sure I can think
> of a case where a symbol would be created in XGATE space that needs to
> be referenced by the S12, but the check you've added for that case is
> likely harmless.
>
> However, it would be worth adding some testcases to the testsuite to
> confirm the new behaviour.
>
> regards
>
> James