From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20999 invoked by alias); 22 May 2003 15:59:08 -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 20610 invoked from network); 22 May 2003 15:58:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca) (132.246.100.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 May 2003 15:58:59 -0000 Received: from hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca (hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4MFvfgL011053; Thu, 22 May 2003 11:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dave@localhost) by hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4MFvepM011052; Thu, 22 May 2003 11:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200305221557.h4MFvepM011052@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Subject: Re: [BFD PATCH] File truncation in objcopy for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 in binutils-2.13.1 To: drow@mvista.com (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:59:00 -0000 From: "John David Anglin" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, sdowning@frame.com In-Reply-To: <20030522154214.GA26109@nevyn.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at May 22, 2003 11:42:14 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00698.txt.bz2 > On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:40:40PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > > 2003-05-21 Stuart F. Downing > > > > * som.h: Define PA_2_0 before including a.out.h > > > > Installed on binutils trunk. I tested the patch on a PA 1.1 system > > running hpux 10.20. Seems to work fine with latest headers and linker. > > Is this patch appropriate for the branch? It's a bug fix, but I wouldn't rate it high priority. Does that meet the branch rules? Dave -- J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)