From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-39894-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9230 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2005 03:49:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9083 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2005 03:49:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mout2.freenet.de) (194.97.50.155)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Apr 2005 03:49:44 -0000
Received: from [194.97.50.135] (helo=mx2.freenet.de)
	by mout2.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.51)
	id 1DOSh2-00033T-ST; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:49:32 +0200
Received: from j016a.j.pppool.de ([85.74.1.106] helo=[192.168.0.172])
	by mx2.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID rcrtems@freenet.de) (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.51 #8)
	id 1DOSh2-0000WP-85; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:49:32 +0200
Subject: Re: binutils-2.16 news
From: Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius@rtems.org>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>, Binutils List <binutils@sources.redhat.com>,  Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050421032051.GB5450@bubble.modra.org>
References: <20050420071453.GC3052@bubble.modra.org>
	 <1113986765.18714.87.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	 <42662352.9040107@redhat.com>
	 <1113992171.18714.130.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	 <20050421032051.GB5450@bubble.modra.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:49:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1114055366.18714.158.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00594.txt.bz2

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 12:50 +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:16:11PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 10:39 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > > >>+    h8300-*-coff
> > > >>+    h8300-*-rtems*
> > > > 
> > > > Does this mean you are going to remove the entire h8 series or why are
> > > > you planning to remove these 2 targets?
> > > 
> > > No, the h8300-elf port is still going to be valid.  It is just that at 
> > > the moment it looks like nobody wants to step up and champion the 
> > > h8300-coff and h8300-rtems ports...
> > OK, I understand, the reason is coff?
> 
> No, the reason is a non-BFD_ASSEMBLER gas port.  I want to rip out all
> the old non-BFD_ASSEMBLER gas code, so unless the tc files are converted
> over to BFD_ASSEMBLER they will no longer compile.
Now, you've lost me.

AFAIU, this would affect h8300-*-elf, too, i.e. you'd be removing the
h8300 port as a whole.

Ralf