* patch ping
@ 2005-06-27 10:35 Jan Beulich
2005-07-04 15:18 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2005-06-27 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
Any comments on
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-06/msg00445.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-06/msg00448.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-06/msg00454.html
(all submitted on June 16th)?
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-06-27 10:35 patch ping Jan Beulich
@ 2005-07-04 15:18 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2005-07-04 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils
Hi Jan,
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-06/msg00445.html
H.J. asked for a testcase to accompany this patch.
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-06/msg00448.html
I have approved this one.
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-06/msg00454.html
H.J. approved this one but asked you to convert the patch to ISO C90.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-12-22 13:19 Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-22 13:52 ` Matt Thomas
2005-12-22 18:15 ` Nick Clifton
@ 2005-12-22 21:11 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson @ 2005-12-22 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan-Benedict Glaw; +Cc: binutils
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> I'd like (for the third or fourth time...) get feedback on this patch:
Just a thought: it might have been faster if you just volunteer
for VAX co-maintainer. :-)
brgds, H-P
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-12-22 18:15 ` Nick Clifton
@ 2005-12-22 18:23 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2005-12-22 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: binutils
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]
On Thu, 2005-12-22 18:19:05 +0000, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Jan-Benedict,
> >I'd like (for the third or fourth time...) get feedback on this patch:
>
> Our emails must have crossed in the ether ...
No problem.
> This patch has now been applied.
Thanks. I'll soon send the next VAX-related patches.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O
für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-12-22 13:19 Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-22 13:52 ` Matt Thomas
@ 2005-12-22 18:15 ` Nick Clifton
2005-12-22 18:23 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-22 21:11 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2005-12-22 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan-Benedict Glaw; +Cc: binutils
Hi Jan-Benedict,
> I'd like (for the third or fourth time...) get feedback on this patch:
Our emails must have crossed in the ether ...
This patch has now been applied.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-12-22 13:19 Jan-Benedict Glaw
@ 2005-12-22 13:52 ` Matt Thomas
2005-12-22 18:15 ` Nick Clifton
2005-12-22 21:11 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Matt Thomas @ 2005-12-22 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan-Benedict Glaw; +Cc: binutils
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like (for the third or fourth time...) get feedback on this patch:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-12/msg00150.html
>
> If you think it's okay, please accept it. (Tested, no regressions, in
> daily use for more than a year, only refreshed when the non-BFD
> assemblers were thrown out...)
I don't have a problem with it. Looks OK to me.
--
Matt Thomas email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2005-12-22 13:19 Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-22 13:52 ` Matt Thomas
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2005-12-22 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]
Hi!
I'd like (for the third or fourth time...) get feedback on this patch:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-12/msg00150.html
If you think it's okay, please accept it. (Tested, no regressions, in
daily use for more than a year, only refreshed when the non-BFD
assemblers were thrown out...)
Thanks, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O
für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2005-12-21 10:55 Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2005-12-21 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-12/msg00001.html was submitted
about three weeks ago; any chance of getting a review? Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-12-13 8:00 Jan Beulich
@ 2005-12-14 8:27 ` Andreas Jaeger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Jaeger @ 2005-12-14 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils, Jan Hubicka
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 484 bytes --]
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> writes:
> Once again there is an x86-64 patch
> (http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-11/msg00322.html) having
> waited for review for over three weeks. Thanks in advance for taking
> some time to look through it. Jan
Approved,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2005-12-13 8:00 Jan Beulich
2005-12-14 8:27 ` Andreas Jaeger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2005-12-13 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils, Andreas Jaeger, Jan Hubicka
Once again there is an x86-64 patch
(http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-11/msg00322.html) having
waited for review for over three weeks. Thanks in advance for taking
some time to look through it. Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-09-28 19:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2005-09-28 19:37 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-09-28 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:27:36AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:48:44AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:23:50PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > >
> > > I started looking at this one, and got as far as the following patch:
> > > * readelf.c (debug_apply_rela_addends): Relocate the whole
> > > section.
> > >
> > > I'll leave this one for Nick to review, since I'm not sure of the
> > > ramifications of this FIXME.
> > > + /* FIXME: The relocation field size is relocation type dependent. */
> > > + unsigned int reloc_size = 4;
> >
> > It shouldn't matter unless the addend is >= 0xffffffff, which is quite
> > rare.
>
> Or negative and sign extended? e.g. mips64.
>
MIPS is handled explicitly in debug_apply_rela_addends. But I have
no idea if it is done right or not. If we really want to make
debug_apply_rela_addends 100% correctly, it should get the relocation
size from the relocation type.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-09-28 17:16 ` H. J. Lu
@ 2005-09-28 19:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-09-28 19:37 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-09-28 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:48:44AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:23:50PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> >
> > I started looking at this one, and got as far as the following patch:
> > * readelf.c (debug_apply_rela_addends): Relocate the whole
> > section.
> >
> > I'll leave this one for Nick to review, since I'm not sure of the
> > ramifications of this FIXME.
> > + /* FIXME: The relocation field size is relocation type dependent. */
> > + unsigned int reloc_size = 4;
>
> It shouldn't matter unless the addend is >= 0xffffffff, which is quite
> rare.
Or negative and sign extended? e.g. mips64.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-09-28 13:27 ` Alan Modra
@ 2005-09-28 17:16 ` H. J. Lu
2005-09-28 19:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-09-28 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:23:50PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> I started looking at this one, and got as far as the following patch:
> * readelf.c (debug_apply_rela_addends): Relocate the whole
> section.
>
> I'll leave this one for Nick to review, since I'm not sure of the
> ramifications of this FIXME.
> + /* FIXME: The relocation field size is relocation type dependent. */
> + unsigned int reloc_size = 4;
It shouldn't matter unless the addend is >= 0xffffffff, which is quite
rare.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-09-27 19:12 ` H. J. Lu
@ 2005-09-28 13:27 ` Alan Modra
2005-09-28 17:16 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2005-09-28 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. J. Lu; +Cc: binutils
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:23:39AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00113.html
OK.
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00118.html
OK.
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00179.html
I started looking at this one, and got as far as the following patch:
* readelf.c (debug_apply_rela_addends): Relocate the whole
section.
I'll leave this one for Nick to review, since I'm not sure of the
ramifications of this FIXME.
+ /* FIXME: The relocation field size is relocation type dependent. */
+ unsigned int reloc_size = 4;
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-09-27 9:51 Jan Beulich
2005-09-27 19:12 ` H. J. Lu
@ 2005-09-28 13:22 ` Alan Modra
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2005-09-28 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:40:49AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00431.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00433.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00135.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00136.html
All OK.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2005-09-27 21:53 Arnold Metselaar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnold Metselaar @ 2005-09-27 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
These two patches for gas/app.c were submitted two weeks ago
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00142.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00156.html
I consider the first one obvious, but I don't have write access
to the repository.
The second one is a bit more complicated.
Arnold
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-09-27 9:51 Jan Beulich
@ 2005-09-27 19:12 ` H. J. Lu
2005-09-28 13:27 ` Alan Modra
2005-09-28 13:22 ` Alan Modra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-09-27 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:40:49AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> These two patches were submitted four weeks ago:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00431.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00433.html
>
> and these two two weeks ago:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00135.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00136.html
>
> Would anyone please check these and let me know if there's anything
> wrong with them? Three of them specifically deal with x86-64 behavior,
> and it appears to be a recurring problem that patches for this
> architecture don't get reviewed...
I volunteer for the co-maintainer of x86-64 so that I can review x86-64
patches.
BTW, I also have a few patches
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00113.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00118.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00179.html
to be reviewed.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2005-09-27 9:51 Jan Beulich
2005-09-27 19:12 ` H. J. Lu
2005-09-28 13:22 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2005-09-27 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
These two patches were submitted four weeks ago:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00431.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-08/msg00433.html
and these two two weeks ago:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00135.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00136.html
Would anyone please check these and let me know if there's anything
wrong with them? Three of them specifically deal with x86-64 behavior,
and it appears to be a recurring problem that patches for this
architecture don't get reviewed...
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Patch ping
@ 2005-07-27 11:19 Ben Elliston
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Ben Elliston @ 2005-07-27 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 214 bytes --]
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-07/msg00419.html
I didn't realise that the testsuite proc my patch alters is only a
week and a half old. That makes me a lot less cautious about
modifying it. :-)
Ben
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2005-07-26 16:27 patch ping Jan Beulich
@ 2005-07-26 23:45 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2005-07-26 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: jh, aj, jh, binutils
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:28:10AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-07/msg00099.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-07/msg00134.html
Both OK.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2005-07-26 16:27 Jan Beulich
2005-07-26 23:45 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2005-07-26 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jh, aj, jh; +Cc: binutils
These two patches
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-07/msg00099.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-07/msg00134.html
were submitted about three weeks ago.
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: patch ping
2003-10-02 15:23 Nathan Sidwell
@ 2003-10-04 11:19 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2003-10-04 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Sidwell; +Cc: binutils, Ian Lance Taylor
Hi Nathan,
> bfd/Changelog:
> 2003-09-18 Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
>
> * libbfd-in.h (_bfd_link_section_stabs): Add string offset
> parameter.
> * cofflink.c (coff_link_add_symbols): Deal with split stab
> sections.
> * elflink.h (elf_link_add_object_symbols): Deal with split stab
> sections.
> * stabs.c (_bfd_link_section_stabs): Add string offset parameter.
> * libbfd.h: Regenerated.
>
> ld/ChangeLog:
> 2003-09-18 Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
>
> * ldwrite.c (unsplittable_name): New.
> (clone_section): Strip existing numeric suffix. Only truncate names
> for coff targets.
> (split_sections): Use unsplittable_name.
>
> binutils/ChangeLog:
> 2003-09-18 Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
>
> * objdump.c (read_section_stabs): Just read one section, return
> pointer to it. Add size parameter.
> (print_section_stabs): Add string offset parameter. Adjust.
> (struct stab_section_names): Add string offset member.
> (find_stabs_sections): Correct check for split section suffix,
> adjust read_section_stabs and print_section_stabs calls.
> (dump_stabs_section): Clear string_offset, free string table.
Approved - please apply.
[Sorry for the delay in approving].
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* patch ping
@ 2003-10-02 15:23 Nathan Sidwell
2003-10-04 11:19 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Sidwell @ 2003-10-02 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils; +Cc: Ian Lance Taylor
I've received no further feedback on
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-09/msg00343.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-09/msg00351.html
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
The voices in my head said this was stupid too
nathan@codesourcery.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Patch ping
@ 2003-02-19 23:15 Phil Edwards
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2003-02-19 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-02/msg00234.html
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-12-22 21:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-06-27 10:35 patch ping Jan Beulich
2005-07-04 15:18 ` Nick Clifton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-12-22 13:19 Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-22 13:52 ` Matt Thomas
2005-12-22 18:15 ` Nick Clifton
2005-12-22 18:23 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-22 21:11 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2005-12-21 10:55 Jan Beulich
2005-12-13 8:00 Jan Beulich
2005-12-14 8:27 ` Andreas Jaeger
2005-09-27 21:53 Arnold Metselaar
2005-09-27 9:51 Jan Beulich
2005-09-27 19:12 ` H. J. Lu
2005-09-28 13:27 ` Alan Modra
2005-09-28 17:16 ` H. J. Lu
2005-09-28 19:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-09-28 19:37 ` H. J. Lu
2005-09-28 13:22 ` Alan Modra
2005-07-27 11:19 Patch ping Ben Elliston
2005-07-26 16:27 patch ping Jan Beulich
2005-07-26 23:45 ` Alan Modra
2003-10-02 15:23 Nathan Sidwell
2003-10-04 11:19 ` Nick Clifton
2003-02-19 23:15 Patch ping Phil Edwards
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).