From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7176 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2002 02:13:55 -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 7153 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2002 02:13:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (136.182.1.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jul 2002 02:13:51 -0000 Received: [from pobox4.mot.com ([10.64.251.243]) by motgate2.mot.com (motgate2 2.1) with ESMTP id TAA28210; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:12:09 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (latour.rsch.comm.mot.com [145.1.80.116]) by pobox4.mot.com (MOT-pobox4 2.0) with ESMTP id TAA13548; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:11:46 -0700 (MST)] Received: from latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (localhost.rsch.comm.mot.com [127.0.0.1]) by latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6G2BjJ6092174; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:11:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com) Received: (from rittle@localhost) by latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g6G2Bjn7092161; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:11:45 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:28:00 -0000 From: Loren James Rittle Message-Id: <200207160211.g6G2Bjn7092161@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> To: sje@cup.hp.com CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <200207151615.JAA16249@hpsje.cup.hp.com> (message from Steve Ellcey on Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: Add hppa*64* support to libtool in binutils Reply-to: rittle@labs.mot.com References: <200207151615.JAA16249@hpsje.cup.hp.com> User-Agent: SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.5 (i386-unknown-freebsdelf3.2) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 In article <200207151615.JAA16249@hpsje.cup.hp.com>, Steve Ellcey writes: >> This is a first cut at adding hppa64 support to libtool in binutils. >> The same needs to done in gcc and in the libtool source. Unfortunately, >> the binutils and gcc sources are somewhat out of sync, so it seems >> separate patches will be needed in each case. > This would leave Loren Rittle's GCC libtool patch > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-05/msg00234.html) as the > only difference between the binutils and GCC libtools. Loren, do > you know of any reason this patch couldn't be applied to the > binutils libtool? Hi Steve, I have received no reports that the patch made the situation worse on any platform. Alex did report that it was not a complete solution to the entire problem space and I concur with his analysis. It has been applied to libtool mainline. Thus, I know of no reason why that patch can't travel to the binutils copy of libtool. Regards, Loren