[PATCH 2/2] bfd: Remove bfd_arch_l1om and bfd_arch_k1om

[H.J. Lu]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 8:26 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> On 25.03.2022 15:36, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 7:28 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25.03.2022 15:22, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 1:21 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24.03.2022 20:23, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>>>> Remove bfd_arch_l1om and bfd_arch_k1om since L1OM/K1OM support has
> been
> >>>>> removed from gas, ld and opcodes.
> >>>>
> >>>> As said in a post-commit-message comment of the patch removing support
> >>>> from ld/, I'd prefer to keep e.g. elfedit functioning for these
> targets.
> >>>
> >>> elfedit doesn't need bfd_arch_l1om nor bfd_arch_k1om.
> >>
> >> Oh, okay. (I didn't check how it actually works internally.)
> >>
> >>>> Maybe not necessarily for the input, but at least for the output. Else
> >>>> there's no way for people to create such objects anymore, forcing them
> >>>> to resort to hex-editing of files, which I view as undesirable. I
> think
> >>>> this 2nd patch goes against that; I'm not sure in how far the 1st one
> >>>> would still allow this to function.
> >>>
> >>> People can use the older binutils.
> >>
> >> Hmm, well, yes, that's possible, but not very nice. But according to
> >> your reply further up I take it that it'll continue to function anyway?
> >
> > We have removed L1OM/K1OM support from ld, gas and objdump.
> > What else do we support L1OM/K1OM?
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
>
> Jan
>

> What support do my patches remove?