Re: [PATCH] Don't define ARCH_cris for BFD64

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com>]

> From: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 10:39:58 +0200

> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
> > On 5/4/22 09:08, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 08:56:28AM +0100, Luis Machado via Binutils wrote:
> > > > I believe it is a mistake to define ARCH_cris when BFD64 is defined. It is
> > > > a 32-bit architecture, so should be placed outside of the BFD64 block.
> > > 
> > > No.  cris may be 32-bit but the bfd support requires a 64-bit bfd.
> > > See config.bfd.
> > > 
> > 
> > Interesting, I missed that. So I suppose GDB will need to move these cris
> > files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS.
> > 
> > I see opcodes/Makefile.am also puts the cris files into
> > TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. Is that a mistake?
> 
> Hmm, maybe config.bfd is wrong.  I see cris files in bfd/Makefile.am
> BFD32_BACKENDS.  Hans-Peter, do you know what is going on here?

I didn't remember that I had changed anything 32/64-related
in that area, so I had to consult git blame.  The most
recent change I did was in 2017, so whatever 32/64-changes
is probably related to 56fbd041853a "Fix gas/22304 by
forcing a 64-bit bfd for cris*-*" (TL;DR: expressions
overflow).  That commit *could* be slightly wrong; perhaps
it shouldn't be wrapped in #ifdef BFD64?

Adding CRIS files to BFD32_BACKENDS happened when the port
was added, back in 2000.  If it's wrong for a 32-bit target
to be there, then I don't want to be right! :)

brgds, H-P