From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12830 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2005 02:04:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12230 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2005 02:04:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bluesmobile.specifixinc.com) (64.220.152.98) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2005 02:04:19 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.corp.specifixinc.com [192.168.1.2]) by bluesmobile.specifixinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C24D167EA; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:04:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: build failure for ia64 (due to -Werror) From: James E Wilson To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Nick Clifton , Ben Elliston , binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <423A2ADB.6090807@au.ibm.com> <423ABA6A.4030409@redhat.com> <20050318122113.GY21148@bubble.modra.org> <1111177693.9897.18.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <20050318234920.GE21148@bubble.modra.org> <1111194296.9897.158.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1111197858.9897.201.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:57:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00570.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 17:23, Andreas Schwab wrote: > This is wrong. bfd_uint64_t does not require a 64-bit BFD, only a native > 64-bit type (be it long long or long). Another thing I find confusing here, if what you say is right, then why did Alan go to all of the trouble of removing all 64-bit types from the elfNN_ia64_relax_brl function last month? I am assuming there is a reason why he made such a large change, when a much simpler one could have been made if you are right. Perhaps my assumption is wrong. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com