From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15922 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2005 18:59:43 -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 15895 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2005 18:59:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2005 18:59:40 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D4OCk-0002LJ-JY; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:59:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Swiger, Dan" Cc: "'E. Weddington'" , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: nios-elf-objcopy S-record length Message-ID: <20050224185918.GA8974@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Swiger, Dan" , "'E. Weddington'" , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <2C52593826C4D611A69F00508B60303F0281CF3D@aego_exch1.sigp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2C52593826C4D611A69F00508B60303F0281CF3D@aego_exch1.sigp.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 01:47:38PM -0500, Swiger, Dan wrote: > > Eric wrote: > > Not to get into a long OT discussion about it, but obviously > > they should > > provide the sources if asked.... > > Though I can understand your reluctance when you're just > > trying to solve > > your problem... > > > > Out of curiousity, why is the SRecord line length a problem? > > Why do you > > need 16 data bytes per line? > > > The reason is because I will be stuffing the S-records into a 16-bit FLASH. > We have an established S-Record download mechanism that will be greatly > put-off by the "odd byte" on the end/beggining of an S-Record. It stands to > reason, to me at least, that if you are building an S-record for a 16-bit > device (like NIOS), you'd put an even number of 16-bits in each individual > S-Record. > > The other thing that confuses me is that I wouldn't expect this version of > the GNU tool chain to be 5 years old, which is when the patch was added to > the "GNU mainline" (if that is an appropriate term). The "advertised > version" of the NIOS GNU tools is "2.9", but I can't find quickly when the > mainline was at 2.9. Current version is 2.16. 2.9 would be, yes, about that old. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC