From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32522 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2006 14:56:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 32514 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Mar 2006 14:56:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:56:05 +0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2VEu1ks017288 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:56:02 -0500 Received: from M31.equallogic.com (M31.equallogic.com [172.16.1.31]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k2VEu03L017276; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:56:00 -0500 Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.169]) by M31.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:55:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17453.17150.206621.128514@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:03:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: jbglaw@lug-owl.de Cc: nickc@redhat.com, binutils@sourceware.org, silyevsk@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PR 2494] PDP-11: Wrong opcode for SEC/CLC References: <20060331083601.GG22210@lug-owl.de> <7bf3ae9d0603310312y3cbdaebcv85d04897415d046d@mail.gmail.com> <20060331112110.GJ22210@lug-owl.de> <20060331114603.GC22279@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060331120017.GK22210@lug-owl.de> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan-Benedict" == Jan-Benedict Glaw writes: Jan-Benedict> On Fri, 2006-03-31 21:16:03 +0930, Alan Modra Jan-Benedict> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 01:21:11PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: >> > > > - { "sec", 0x00a1, 0xffff, PDP11_OPCODE_NO_OPS, PDP11_BASIC >> }, > > > + { "sec", 0x00b1, 0xffff, PDP11_OPCODE_NO_OPS, >> PDP11_BASIC }, >> > >> > May I check this in under the obvious rule? >> >> Yes, that would have been OK, but someone else posted a patch >> before this one, which I've committed. Jan-Benedict> *gnarf* So we had a nice overlap and no hint in the Jan-Benedict> PR. However, the bug is fixed, so everything is okay Jan-Benedict> again :-) Sorry... I wasn't sure about all the proper procedures. I'll be better prepared next time. paul