I am having problems applying them to the current CVS version. Almost all the diffs fail to apply, I've copied an excerpt below. Am I using the wrong version ? |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/coff-arm.c,v |retrieving revision 1.63 |diff -c -3 -p -r1.63 coff-arm.c |*** bfd/coff-arm.c 16 Mar 2006 12:20:15 -0000 1.63 |--- bfd/coff-arm.c 10 May 2006 10:05:35 -0000 -------------------------- File to patch: bfd/coff-arm.c patching file bfd/coff-arm.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 220. Hunk #2 FAILED at 233. Hunk #3 FAILED at 246. Hunk #4 FAILED at 294. Hunk #5 FAILED at 307. Hunk #6 FAILED at 1209. 6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file bfd/coff-arm.c.rej The versions of the relevant files I see in CVS are : bfd/coff-arm.c 1.63 2006/03/16 gas/config/tc-arm.c 1.267 2006/05/09 ld/pe-dll.c 1.83 2006/01/31 ld/emultempl/pe.em 1.113 2005/11/24 I also tried your patch against binutils-2.16.1 - that only produced patch failures in one file (tc-arm.c). Danny On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:48 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Pedro, Hi Danny, > > Please accept my apologies in taking so long to reply to your emails. > I have now had a chance to go over them and the patches that they > contained and then seemed quite reasonable to me. I have applied them > to my local source tree and checked to see if there were any regressions > - there were not. > > Unfortunately I do not have an arm-wince system at my disposal, so I > cannot check that the (slightly revised) versions of the patches that I > applied allow working binaries to be created, so please can I ask for > your help ? > > I am attaching a unified patch which I think contains all of the > changes that you suggested, along with a little bit of code tidying. > Please could you try applying them to a set of binutils sources (from > the mainline of the CVS repository) and testing them to see if they > produce working binaries ? > > One thing I am quite worried about is whether partial linking will > work. (ie using the "ld -r ...." file to create an object file that is > an amalgam of several other object files). I suspect that there might > be problems with the -8 bias to branch relocations, but without a test > environment I cannot tell for sure. > > Thanks very much for perserving with your work, and assuming that you > can confirm that the patch works, I will be happy to check it in with > the ChangeLogs below. > > Cheers > Nick > > bfd/ChangeLog > 2006-05-10 Pedro Alves > > * coff-arm.c (ARM_26D, ARM_32, ARM_RVA_32, ARM_SECTION, > ARM_SECREL): Mark WinCE versions of these relocs as partial > inplace. > (coff_arm_relocate_section): Adjust addend for WinCE. > > gas/ChangeLog > 2006-05-10 Pedro Alves > > * config/tc-arm.c (md_pcrel_from_section): Force a bias for relocs > against external symbols for WinCE targets. > (md_apply_fix): Likewise. > > ld/ChangeLog > 2006-05-10 Pedro Alves > > * pe-dll.c (autofilter_symbollist): Add Dllmain, > DllMainCRTStartup, _DllMainCRTStartup and .text. > (autofilter_liblist): Add libcegcc. > (autofilter_symbolprefixlist): Add __imp_ and .idata$. > (generate_reloc): Do not skip sections without a SEC_LOAD flag, > they can still contain relocs that need processing. > Skip the .idata$6 section. > (jmp_arm_bytes): New array: Contains byte codes for an ARM jump. > (make_one): Use the new array. > (make_import_fixup_entry): Use .idata$2 instead of .idata$3. > * emultempl/pe.em (MajorSubsystemVersion): Set to 3 for armpe. > > -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info