This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [parisc-linux] second sr0 patch
- From: Matthew Wilcox <willy at debian dot org>
- To: LaMont Jones <lamont at hp dot com>
- Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy at debian dot org>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,parisc-linux at lists dot parisc-linux dot org
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] second sr0 patch
- References: <20030223204842.E2938@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20030223222035.26E3812133@security.hp.com>
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 03:20:35PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
> In article <20030223204842 dot E2938 at parcelfarce dot linux dot theplanet dot co dot uk> you wrote:
> > +++ gas/config/tc-hppa.c 23 Feb 2003 19:21:09 -0000
> > @@ -1794,7 +1794,7 @@ pa_ip (str)
> > if (!pa_parse_number (&s, 0))
> > break;
> > num = pa_number;
> > - CHECK_FIELD (num, 3, 0, 1);
> > + CHECK_FIELD (num, 3, 1, 1);
> I don't think this is a good plan. Emit a warning, sure, but there is
> a large collection of legacy PARISC assembly code out there that has
> this perfectly legal, and hp-ux assembler-accepted-from-day-0 construct.
OK, patch withdrawn. It's misleading to use this construct, but if people
have been doing it for fifteen years then it's just not reasonable to
not support it now.
The other patch still stands; we're not using sr0 so it's misleading to
pretend that we are.
--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk