patch ping

patch ping

[Jan Beulich]

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-12/msg00001.html was submitted
about three weeks ago; any chance of getting a review? Thanks, Jan

Re: patch ping, II, RDOS

[Leif Ekblad]

     2005-12-12  Leif Ekblad  leif@rdos.net

     * configure.in: Added support for target RDOS
     * bfd/config.bfd: Added RDOS targets
     * gas/configure.tgt: Added RDOS target format
     * ld/configure.tgt: Added RDOS target format


--- binutils-org/configure.in 2005-06-12 21:33:06.000000000 +0200
+++ binutils-2.16.1/configure.in 2005-12-12 15:16:53.000000000 +0100
@@ -722,6 +722,9 @@ case "${target}" in
mips*-*-*)
noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs gprof ${libgcj}"
;;
+ i[[3456789]]86-*-rdos*)
+ noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs gdb target-newlib target-libgloss"
+ ;;
romp-*-*)
noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs bfd binutils ld gas opcodes target-libgloss
${libgcj}"
;;

--- binutils-org/bfd/config.bfd 2005-01-31 18:18:47.000000000 +0100
+++ binutils-2.16.1/bfd/config.bfd 2005-12-12 15:24:30.000000000 +0100
@@ -585,6 +585,10 @@ case "${targ}" in
# FIXME: This should eventually be checked at runtime.
targ_cflags=-DSTRICT_PE_FORMAT
;;
+ i[3-7]86-*-rdos*)
+ targ_defvec=bfd_elf32_i386_vec
+ targ_selvecs=i386coff_vec
+ ;;
i[3-7]86-*-mingw32* | i[3-7]86-*-cygwin* | i[3-7]86-*-winnt | i[3-7]86-*-pe)
targ_defvec=i386pe_vec
targ_selvecs="i386pe_vec i386pei_vec bfd_elf32_i386_vec"

--- binutils-org/gas/configure.tgt 2005-01-31 18:18:51.000000000 +0100
+++ binutils-2.16.1/gas/configure.tgt 2005-12-12 15:30:13.000000000 +0100
@@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ case ${generic_target} in
i386-*-nto-qnx*) fmt=elf ;;
i386-*-*nt*) fmt=coff em=pe ;;
i386-*-chaos) fmt=elf ;;
+ i386-*-rdos*) fmt=elf ;;
i860-*-*) fmt=elf endian=little ;;

--- binutils-org/ld/configure.tgt 2005-02-08 20:54:27.000000000 +0100
+++ binutils-2.16.1/ld/configure.tgt 2005-12-12 15:32:53.000000000 +0100
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ i[3-7]86-*-rtemscoff*) targ_emul=i386cof
i[3-7]86-*-rtemself*) targ_emul=elf_i386 ;;
i[3-7]86-*-rtems*) targ_emul=elf_i386 ;;
i[3-7]86-*-aros*) targ_emul=elf_i386 ;;
+i[3-7]86-*-rdos*) targ_emul=elf_i386 ;;
i[3-7]86-*-bsd) targ_emul=i386bsd ;;
i[3-7]86-*-bsd386) targ_emul=i386bsd ;;
i[3-7]86-*-bsdi*) targ_emul=i386bsd ;;

Regards,
Leif Ekblad
www.rdos.net/rdos

patch ping

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- 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 --]

Re: patch ping

[Matt Thomas]

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.

Re: patch ping

[Nick Clifton]

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

Re: patch ping

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- 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 --]

Re: patch ping

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

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

patch ping

[Jan Beulich]

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

Re: patch ping

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- 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 --]

patch ping

[Arnold Metselaar]

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

patch ping

[Jan Beulich]

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

Re: patch ping

[H. J. Lu]

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.

Re: patch ping

[Alan Modra]

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

Re: patch ping

[H. J. Lu]

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.

Re: patch ping

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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

Re: patch ping

[H. J. Lu]

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.

Re: patch ping

[Alan Modra]

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

Patch ping

[Ben Elliston]

[-- 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 --]

patch ping

[Jan Beulich]

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

Re: patch ping

[Alan Modra]

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

patch ping

[Jan Beulich]

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

Re: patch ping

[Nick Clifton]

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

patch ping

[Nathan Sidwell]

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

Re: patch ping

[Nick Clifton]

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
        

Patch ping

[Phil Edwards]

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