From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1258 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2005 13:58:49 -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 1124 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2005 13:58:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2005 13:58:38 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1ODwcBY001272 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-86.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.86]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j1ODwcK14866; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:38 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFD87D79; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:55:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <421DDCC3.500@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:31:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Rearrange SEC_XXX bits References: <20050221211925.GB14151@lucon.org> <421C983D.8050201@gnu.org> <20050223194053.GA31025@lucon.org> In-Reply-To: <20050223194053.GA31025@lucon.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00588.txt.bz2 H. J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:50:37AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>H. J. Lu wrote: >> >>>We have very limited space in BFD section flag. But SEC_ARCH_BIT_0 is >>>never used. There are also some COFF and TI specific bits. This patch >>>removes SEC_ARCH_BIT_0 and makes COFF/TI specific bits for COFF/TI >>>only so that other format/target can reuse those bits. >> >>FYI, this looks to break gdb's dump.exp testcase (that test writes out >>then reads back random object file formats verifying the result). Right >>now I consider this 'weird'. >> > > > I don't see how my patch should change anything. Like I said, 'weird'. It does point to this being an ABI change - any any solib version number needs to be rolled. > In any case, I got > > Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/detach.exp ... > Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/display.exp ... > Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp ... > Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/echo.exp ... > > It looks fine to me. That's because I found / fixed the [gdb] bug ;-) Andrew