From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5318 invoked by alias); 11 May 2006 08:56:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 5309 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2006 08:56:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 08:56:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4B8spJU010268; Thu, 11 May 2006 04:54:51 -0400 Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4B8soO3009831; Thu, 11 May 2006 04:54:51 -0400 Received: from [10.32.68.2] (vpn-68-2.surrey.redhat.com [10.32.68.2]) by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4B8sotW006403; Thu, 11 May 2006 09:54:50 +0100 Message-ID: <4462FBD4.5080202@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:59:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Danny Backx CC: pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Binutils on arm : pls advice me how to proceed References: <1146765307.4177.16.camel@dannypc> <20060504180348.GA5785@nevyn.them.org> <445A4FF9.2020903@portugalmail.pt> <4461C504.6050208@redhat.com> <1147291981.3774.28.camel@dannypc> In-Reply-To: <1147291981.3774.28.camel@dannypc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2 Hi Danny, > I am having problems applying them to the current CVS version. Almost > all the diffs fail to apply, I've copied an excerpt below. Am I using > the wrong version ? > > |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/coff-arm.c,v > |retrieving revision 1.63 No, that looks correct. > |diff -c -3 -p -r1.63 coff-arm.c > |*** bfd/coff-arm.c 16 Mar 2006 12:20:15 -0000 1.63 > |--- bfd/coff-arm.c 10 May 2006 10:05:35 -0000 > -------------------------- > File to patch: bfd/coff-arm.c > patching file bfd/coff-arm.c > Hunk #1 FAILED at 220. My guess is that either my mailer mangled the revised patch when I posted it, or your mailer corrupted it when you received it. Most likely this will be a CR vs CR/LF problem. I was going to attached a zip'ed up version of the patch for you to try, but since I have now applied the patch to the sources, you can just run a "cvs update" to get the changes... Cheers Nick