From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20321 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2005 04:04:51 -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 20200 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2005 04:04:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com) (144.140.83.195) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2005 04:04:39 -0000 Received: from modra.org ([144.136.221.26]) by omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20050319040437.GYHG1861.omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com@modra.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:04:37 +0000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0F48019FF58; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:34:37 +1030 (CST) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:37:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: James E Wilson Cc: Andreas Schwab , Nick Clifton , Ben Elliston , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: build failure for ia64 (due to -Werror) Message-ID: <20050319040437.GH21148@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: James E Wilson , Andreas Schwab , Nick Clifton , Ben Elliston , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <423A2ADB.6090807@au.ibm.com> <423ABA6A.4030409@redhat.com> <20050318122113.GY21148@bubble.modra.org> <1111177693.9897.18.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <20050318234920.GE21148@bubble.modra.org> <1111194296.9897.158.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <1111197858.9897.201.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1111197858.9897.201.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00572.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:04:18PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 17:23, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > This is wrong. bfd_uint64_t does not require a 64-bit BFD, only a native > > 64-bit type (be it long long or long). > > Another thing I find confusing here, if what you say is right, then why > did Alan go to all of the trouble of removing all 64-bit types from the > elfNN_ia64_relax_brl function last month? I am assuming there is a > reason why he made such a large change, when a much simpler one could > have been made if you are right. Perhaps my assumption is wrong. I did more than strictly necessary, that's all. Andreas is correct that elfxx-ia64.c only needs a 64-bit host type and minor changes. Larger changes are needed, along the lines of my relax_brl patch, if the 32-bit version of elfxx-ia64.c is to compile without a 64-bit host type. Sorry to add to the confusion.. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre