This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Support ia64-hpux in binutils
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:00:33 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Support ia64-hpux in binutils
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 07:37:05PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > > I will check in this patch shortly for ia64-hpux.
> > As obvious, I presume? I won't comment further on the obviousness, but:
> >
> > Unlike the ld testsuite, the readelf tests don't link files, so
> > the targets that assemble to ELF but link to another format are
> > needlessly left out, like mmix-knuth-mmixware. Right, not
> > changed by this patch, I just happened to spot it.
> >
> > The is_elf_format proc also seems a bit misnamed; the _format
> > part makes me think a file is tested rather than a target. I
> > suggest two procs: is_elf_obj_target (applies only where a REL
> > file is tested) and is_elf_ld_target (where a DYN or EXEC file
> > is tested). Comments?
>
> If ld is not used/tested in binutils tests, why bother with
> is_elf_ld_target?
You misread. I wrote *readelf* tests not *binutils* tests.
> You can just add mmix-knuth-mmixware to
> is_elf_format if it is appropriate.
I can't. REL format is ELF; EXEC format is mmo. The point is
that I don't want to miss out on the binutils/ tests that just
use the assembler. (Points explained twice, thread now over.)
brgds, H-P