From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1987 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2010 10:43:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 1975 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2010 10:43:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:43:09 +0000 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15so2072769wwe.12 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.38.143 with SMTP id b15mr2477429wbe.167.1286707387166; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rsandifo.gotadsl.co.uk [82.133.89.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a17sm2700905wbe.0.2010.10.10.03.43.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:43:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" ,binutils@sourceware.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS/GAS/test: Assorted ECOFF fixes References: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:41:39 +0100 (BST)") Message-ID: <87zkumjpl3.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > 2010-10-03 Maciej W. Rozycki > > gas/testsuite/ > * gas/mips/at-1.d: Handle ECOFF relocations. > * gas/mips/eret-1.d: Handle ECOFF. > * gas/mips/eret-2.d: Likewise. > * gas/mips/eret-3.d: Likewise. > * gas/mips/lb.d: Handle an ECOFF addend. > * gas/mips/mips.exp: Only run "aent" for ELF. Everything apart from the lb.d change is OK. I think an ecoff@ override is more appropriate for the lb.d test. Richard