From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-46131-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22615 invoked by alias); 25 May 2006 05:59:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 22601 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2006 05:59:41 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.203)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Thu, 25 May 2006 05:58:59 +0000
Received: (qmail 29115 invoked from network); 25 May 2006 05:58:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@71.146.96.173 with login)   by smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 May 2006 05:58:57 -0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) 	id 05541641B3; Wed, 24 May 2006 22:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:45:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, joern.rennecke@superh.com, 	aoliva@redhat.com, kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp
Subject: Re: Should sh-*-* enable 64bit targets?
Message-ID: <20060525055855.GA9396@lucon.org>
References: <20060524172325.GA4375@lucon.org> <20060524235309.GB25824@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060525005822.GA7197@lucon.org> <20060525011825.GD25824@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060525023303.GA8100@lucon.org> <20060525031757.GE25824@bubble.grove.modra.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060525031757.GE25824@bubble.grove.modra.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:47:57PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 07:33:03PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:48:25AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 05:58:22PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > >    sh-*-linux*)
> > > >      targ_defvec=bfd_elf32_shblin_vec
> > > >      targ_selvecs=bfd_elf32_shlin_vec
> > > > -#ifdef BFD64
> > > > -    targ_selvecs="${targ_selvecs} bfd_elf32_sh64lin_vec bfd_elf32_sh64blin_vec bfd_elf64_sh64lin_vec bfd_elf64_sh64blin_vec"
> > > > -#endif
> > > > +    targ64_selvecs="bfd_elf32_sh64lin_vec bfd_elf32_sh64blin_vec bfd_elf64_sh64lin_vec bfd_elf64_sh64blin_vec"
> > > >      ;;
> > > 
> > > You should have set want64=true here and in the other sh cases you
> > > changed to use targ64_selvecs.
> > 
> > I am not sure what the original intention was. I assume they wanted
> > to enable 64bit targets if BFD was 64bit. That is what my change does
> > by setting targ64_selvecs.
> 
> #ifdef in a shell script is just a comment.  So the original config.bfd
> always included the 64-bit sh targets in target_selvecs.  Your patch
> to use targ64_selvecs changes that behaviour.  Please add want64=true.

I built the sh-linux cross binutils without my patch:

[hjl@gnu-13 binutils-import-cross]$ ./build-sh-linux/ld/ld-new -V
GNU ld version 2.17.50 20060524
  Supported emulations:
   shlelf_linux
   shelf_linux
 
My patch doesn't change it. The question is what the original
intention was.

I don't think "#ifdef BFD64" is just a comment. targmatch.sed will put
them into targmatch.h:

#ifdef BFD64
...
#endif


H.J.